Engagements
I shall have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Presiding Officer, 215,000 Scots are unemployed and 100,000 young people are without work. How many Scots have to find themselves on the dole before the First Minister admits that his plan MacB is not working?
The unemployment situation in Scotland is extremely serious. The Government is working flat out to generate the maximum number of jobs, but even Iain Gray would have to accept that the position on aggregate demand in the United Kingdom is set by the UK Government. Within that context, the Scottish Government is being successful. We have lower unemployment, higher employment and lower economic inactivity than the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an important aspect that indicates that some of the efforts we are making are bearing fruit in bringing people back into employment and generating employment for our young people.
Is that really the limit of the Scottish National Party’s ambition? Is that what they call success, to be not quite as terrible as the Tories? Even given that very low bar, youth unemployment in Scotland is higher than in the UK as a whole. George Osborne is cutting too fast and too deep, but is it not the truth that Alex Salmond is cutting capital budgets and public sector jobs even faster and even deeper than the Tories?
I do not know where to start with Iain Gray, but let us examine his record. In the period when Scottish unemployment was higher than that of the rest of the UK—it was a brief period in comparison with the Labour Party’s record in office—Iain Gray mentioned it seven times, at virtually every First Minister’s question time. Indeed, in his valedictory address as leader of the Opposition, when he thought that he was going into government, he said:
If any of the 215,000 unemployed people are listening, that will not sound like a plan MacB to them. It will sound like nothing but a lot of MacMince, which is what they have come to expect from their First Minister.
Employment in Scotland is higher than it was at this time last year, unemployment is lower than it was at this time last year, and unemployment in the rest of the United Kingdom is at its highest for 20 years.
I see that the First Minister has won a couple of awards in the past week. It would be churlish of me not to congratulate him, but with unemployment in Scotland standing at 215,000 and at 100,000 for young people, if there was a complacent politician of the year award, he would run away with it.
Let us look at the track record of Scottish National Party ministers, who are working hard to generate employment in Scotland, and the great international companies that have decided in the past few months to locate their activities here: Mitsubishi, Doosan, State Street, BNY Mellon, Gamesa, Dell, INEOS/PetroChina, Aker, FMC Technologies, Vion Hall’s, Avaloq, Amazon and TAQA. Let us consider all those companies and the efforts of SNP ministers and our officials in gathering that investment to Scotland. What has the Labour Party been doing? It is in cahoots with the Tories, trying to talk Scotland down at every opportunity.
Let the First Minister not dare call it talking Scotland down when I speak up for 100,000 unemployed young Scots. Somebody must speak for them, because neither he nor his supine back benches are doing so.
I note that Iain Gray has changed to talking about two years. Otherwise, he would have to acknowledge that in Scotland—uniquely, in the United Kingdom—unemployment has gone down and employment has gone up over the past year.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
Forty-eight hours ago, Transport Scotland, a finger’s-length organisation of the Scottish National Party Government, published its plans for wrecking our railways by having slower trains, fewer stations, more crowding and longer journeys for passengers up and down the country. However, this morning, we read of a screeching U-turn and the SNP Government’s attempts to run a mile from its own consultation. I see that the first page of the document carries lovely pictures of Alex Neil MSP and Keith Brown MSP. How can anyone have the confidence to invest long-term in Scotland’s future when SNP ministers are talking down our railways?
There is a clue to the document’s status in the reference to “consultation” on the front page. I really am surprised by Ruth Davidson. I point out, for example, that page 6 of the document, which sets out options for sleeper services—which is what, I should add, the document is meant to be doing—suggests that they could be reduced or have increased “financial support”. Understandably, some of our press interpreted that as going only one way. This is a document of options from Transport Scotland; SNP ministers’ view on the railways will be published when the consultation ends at the beginning of March.
I understand very well that this is a Government consultation. Indeed, that is my very point: it is a Government consultation from whose words and terms the Government is now running a mile, saying, “A wee quango did it and ran away.”
What people will look at is the contrast, not just in the past few years but over the next few years, between rail services in Scotland, which have been expanding—and where passenger fares, for example, have been set at retail prices index plus 1 per cent—and the situation in England. I do not know whether Ruth Davidson is aware that the Conservative and Liberal Administration’s position on fares in England is RPI plus 3 per cent. We have an expanding revenue base for the railways rising to £794.7 million in 2013-14.
I refer the First Minister to Lord Carloway’s report, which was published today. In paragraph 32 of the executive summary, Lord Carloway recommends that the High Court should not be able to refuse a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, as it can currently do under the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010. He recommends that that provision should be repealed. Is the First Minister minded to accept that recommendation?
We have to consider Lord Carloway’s report in some detail before giving a ministerial response. It is a deeply detailed document with more than 400 pages of detailed assessment and potentially far-reaching implications across the range of our criminal law. Those who have had the opportunity to look at Lord Carloway’s review will recognise that, in a range of areas, he is pointing out that decisions made piecemeal by a number of courts, including the Cadder judgment, have serious implications for Scottish criminal law. Therefore his report was designed—and, I think, fits the task—to set out options for this Parliament to consider. The correct way to proceed is to consider Lord Carloway’s review in detail and then, if necessary—and I think that it will be appropriate—bring to this Parliament the requisite changes that are required to rebalance the judicial process in Scotland.
The First Minister is aware of the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of my constituent Alison Hume in Galston in 2008 and the fatal accident inquiry report that was published yesterday by Sheriff Leslie. In light of Sheriff Leslie’s comments about significant failures in handling the incident by senior officers within Strathclyde Fire and Rescue, will the First Minister assure me that there will be a comprehensive review of the rescue capabilities of that service that puts saving lives first and foremost?
This whole Parliament would want, once again, to join in issuing its condolences to Alison Hume’s family and friends over the circumstances of her death. Sheriff Leslie’s determination is extremely detailed and carries many important lessons and issues. We give our sheriffs in Scotland very substantial powers in fatal accident inquiries—I think that that is the right thing to do. The institution of sheriffs is well recognised and well respected, and therefore the determinations that sheriffs make have to be accepted by all parties. I do not think that they should be second-guessed, and people will be looking for an indication of the action that must now follow.
Teachers (Industrial Action)
The Scottish negotiating committee for teachers is due to discuss the McCormac review of teacher employment on 23 November. The EIS and the Scottish Government will both be involved in those discussions. In my view, any suggestion of strike action by the EIS as a result of the review is therefore premature.
The First Minister’s colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has repeatedly talked about the importance of high-quality teaching and the professionalism of our teaching staff. How does freezing the pay of teachers, cutting the pay of supply teachers and now changing their conditions of employment improve the quality and professionalism of teachers?
The sacrifices that the public sector is making are being made not just by teachers but by all public sector workers. I do not want to go into the economics of where the problem came from, but I think that even a Labour member with his head firmly in the sand should recognise that the Labour Party had a substantial role in creating the economic circumstances in which the situation has arisen.
Inward Investment
Yes. I read out a substantial list of major overseas companies earlier—[Interruption.] I will resist the overwhelming cry from the Conservative benches to read out the list again because you may intervene, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.]
Order.
On Tuesday, I opened the new Amazon fulfilment centre in Dunfermline and the new customer service centre in Edinburgh. Those investments alone will create more than 3,000 permanent and temporary jobs in Scotland. I hope that, whatever views members have on a variety of political issues, the Parliament will unite at least in welcoming the investment by Amazon and the other great companies, expressing more confidence in the future of Scotland than is perhaps held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Westminster.
Does the First Minister share my disappointment that, whenever he announces significant new investment or the creation of new jobs, rather than applaud the hard work of those who strive to bring such companies to Scotland or welcome the positive impact on families, Opposition members sit silently with long faces, disdainful of good news? Does he agree that, rather than constantly scaremongering, Opposition members should show the same confidence in the Scottish workforce as Allan Lyall, the vice-president of European operations at Amazon—
Can we have the question, Mr Gibson?
When asked about the prospects of Amazon investing in an independent Scotland, he said:
The member might wish to know that, although the success of those investments is not recognised on the Opposition benches in this Parliament, it is recognised by the Tory party in the north-east of England. Earlier, I mentioned Mrs Arkley, the senior Conservative in the north-east of England. She has engaged in a range of well-documented activities, including going to the Conservative conference in Manchester on 5 October to lobby the chancellor about the success and firepower of Scotland in attracting thousands of jobs.
Unemployment (Women)
It should be noted that, over the year to September, unemployment decreased in Scotland by 14,000 while it increased in the rest of the United Kingdom. Of that drop in unemployment, 13,000 was a drop in female unemployment. The Government is focused on jobs and growth and is taking a range of actions to ensure that more women and men get the job chances that they need. For example, in 2010-11, nearly 10,000 women started a modern apprenticeship, which represents 45 per cent of the starts; we have made a commitment to having no compulsory redundancies in the Scottish Government and the national health service and to a living wage for the lowest paid in the public sector; and we have established a £1.5 million fund for families and communities to support wraparound childcare and community crèches. That is real positive action from a real Government in Scotland.
Given that yesterday we found out that unemployment in Scotland increased for the second month, does the First Minister share my concern that, along with the worrying figures on young people who are out of work, which include a rise in female youth unemployment, female workers more generally have been particularly affected by recent increases in unemployment? Will he outline what further action he intends to take to deal with the problem? What discussions has he had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the issue, given that the 6.3 per cent cut to local government budgets is likely to affect female workers disproportionately?
We take those matters very seriously. I have discussed them with COSLA and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I note that, because of the timing of the release of unemployment figures, Richard Baker had to lodge his question before he saw the statistics, which were released yesterday. They show that, in the July to September period, female employment in Scotland rose by 9,000 and female unemployment fell by 4,000. Female unemployment in Scotland among those aged 16 and over is 6.2 per cent, whereas it is 7.5 per cent in the United Kingdom as a whole. Just so we are absolutely clear, I point out that I do not regard 6.2 per cent unemployment among women in Scotland as in any way acceptable, which is why I want to do something about it by having the real economic powers that this Parliament requires to act for all our people.
Fossil Fuel Levy
Say thank you.
I hear, “Say thank you,” from the Tory benches. I am delighted to say that, after a huge amount of negotiation, the Westminster Government has decided in its munificence to give Scotland half of the money to which it is entitled. That is amazing. There is a £202 million fund of Scotland’s money paid by Scotland’s generators and it is right and proper that we did a deal to try to release some of it, but it is reasonable to say that the Labour Government would never agree to such a deal.
Given that the long-overdue release of that £103 million has been made possible only by the Scottish Government agreeing that the other half of the fossil fuel levy money that the Treasury holds would fund the creation of the green investment bank, does the First Minister believe that the case for Edinburgh to be the home of that bank is overwhelming?
Yes. As First Minister, I express a consensual point to unite the Parliament: Fergus Ewing and I have written to the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Vince Cable, making the point that the fact that the other 50 per cent of Scotland’s money will help to capitalise the green investment bank is yet another reason for the bank to be headquartered in Scotland.