First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01299)
Meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
This afternoon, the Scottish Parliament will debate the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. Three months after Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, I became a teacher. I was a schoolteacher throughout her time in office. As a teacher, I saw first-hand how our young people had their hopes and aspirations extinguished by the decisions that she made.
I remember the challenge of trying to motivate teenagers who thought that studying was a waste of time because there were no jobs for them anyway. No one in this chamber wants a return to those days. The First Minister pledged that every 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland would have a guaranteed place in education or training. Has he achieved that goal?
The policy for 16 to 19-year-olds has been implemented and is, I suspect, one of a number of reasons why youth unemployment in Scotland has declined in the past year by a third from 25 to 17 per cent. Although that is still far, far too many, it is a substantial achievement. The guarantee for 16 to 19-year-olds, along with the substantial increase in apprenticeships in Scotland, is part of the programme that has led to that success.
I am not sure whether that means that the First Minister has or has not achieved his goal, so I will ask him another question. The First Minister promised that no young person should be left behind—who could disagree with that? How many 16 to 19-year-olds who left school before March this year do not have a place in education or training?
The guarantee for 16 to 19-year-olds is to make the offer to 16 to 19-year-olds—[Interruption.] Labour MSPs should reflect on what is happening elsewhere, in terms of the United Kingdom Government—[Interruption.]
Order.
What is happening elsewhere is that young people are being forced to work for no wages whatsoever. The guarantee for 16 to 19-year-olds, which is unparalleled across these islands, is a significant part of the offer to young people, which is resulting in substantial success.
The reduction in youth unemployment and the increase in youth employment is a substantial success. Every member in this chamber should recognise it as such and take pride in the fact that the Parliament, through initiatives that we are taking, is making a real difference to one of the great corrosive issues—youth unemployment—that affect our society.
Members can say that there are far too many young people who are still unemployed—of course there are—but not to recognise that a reduction of that extent in a single year has something to do with the initiatives taken by this Parliament, the 60 or 70 per cent increase in apprenticeships in Scotland and the youth training guarantee for 16 to 19-year-olds, is to deny the reality that significant moves made by this Government and this Parliament are resulting in benefits to the young people of Scotland.
First, and depressingly, we know that if the figures had gone in the other direction, the First Minister would not have taken responsibility for bad news.
My second point, which is a serious one—I am thinking again about the young people whom I taught in the 1980s—is that long-term youth unemployment is disproportionately higher in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why the issue of the offer—not the guarantee—to 16 to 19-year-olds is so important. The First Minister does not seem to know the answer to the question I asked. In private, though, he does know because, under freedom of information legislation, we have established that Skills Development Scotland has identified more than 7,000 school leavers who are known to be looking for a job or training but have yet to find a place. However, it is worse than that. SDS has also admitted that it has lost more than 17,000 school leavers: it does not know what 17,000 school leavers are doing or where they are. If we do not know where they are, how do we protect them and prevent them from becoming the long-term unemployed who we know have suffered over the past year?
In that context, what are the First Minister’s pledges worth when a guarantee has now become an offer, and the offer has not been delivered?
The employment rate for 16 to 24-year-olds in Scotland is now 56.7 per cent. That compares with a UK level of 49.7 per cent. The unemployment rate is 16.1 per cent, which compares with the UK level of 20.6 per cent. The economic inactivity level is 32 per cent, compared with a UK level of 37 per cent. By any standard, that is a substantial success in the most difficult economic climate.
Johann Lamont says that we take the credit for that. I think that, when the number of apprenticeships is hugely increased, and when that offer is made to 16 to 19-year-olds, this Parliament is entitled to take satisfaction in the substantial improvement in the situation that faces young people in Scotland.
I can tell Johann Lamont that, in terms of the destination of people leaving school, which we have measured exactly over the past few years, we know that, in 2011-12, 89.9 per cent of youngsters went to a positive destination. That compares with a figure in 2006-07—not during the recession times—of 86.6 per cent.
We should reflect for a second on what that means. Not only has there been, over the past year, a substantial improvement in young people getting jobs and apprenticeships and getting a good start in life after the recession, but the destinations of our school leavers are more positive for more youngsters than they were in the good times when the Labour Party was in charge in this Parliament, by any measure.
Can Johann Lamont not find it within herself to say, “Look—something really important is happening here. Perhaps we should follow the apprenticeship programme, which is proving to be such a success. Perhaps there is something to be said for this youth guarantee in helping young people who are getting the tough end of life”? Is there not something for this entire Parliament to welcome in the demonstration that, although effective action cannot solve every problem, it has resulted in a substantial improvement that is affecting the lives and welfare of tens of thousands of young people in Scotland?
It is interesting that, although the First Minister can find lots and lots of figures to trade with me, he cannot answer the question about the 7,000 young people without education or training and the 17,000 people whose whereabouts we do not even know.
One of the lessons that I learned in the 1980s as a schoolteacher was that, when politicians talk to one another and trade figures, they ignore the reality of what is happening to communities throughout Scotland. We cannot allow that to happen again. I ask the First Minister not to trade figures about the bits that he is happy with, but to listen and think about what his own agency is saying, and what is happening to some of our young people. We know that one in every six school leavers is either out of work or out of training, or we do not even know what their status is.
The problem for this Government is that it starts with a slogan, but it cuts careers officers and college places and then denies the truth. The First Minister thinks that politics is about process and good news stories, but it is not. It is about taking hard choices and changing people’s lives. He talks, to bolster his argument, about 25,000 apprenticeships, but he gets to that figure by calling 10,000 people who are already in work for six months apprentices. He cuts college funding—[Interruption.]
Order.
I am asking the First Minister to think about doing the hard stuff. He cuts college funding, but tells the Parliament that it is going up. Now we know what he knew: that 17,000 school leavers have simply disappeared—and that is according to the Government. Please, in this week of all weeks, will the First Minister learn that lesson, put down the slogans and start doing his job?
I know that Johann Lamont does not like the figures, but she should perhaps reflect on the fact that I just gave her the figure for school leavers reaching positive destinations—something that we have now identified exactly. That shows not just a recovery since the recession, but a situation that is better than when Labour was in power.
During that question, Johann Lamont said something particularly interesting. She tried to suggest that the number of apprenticeships—16,000 to almost 26,000—is not a real figure, because the percentage of people in work for six months is high. The percentage of apprenticeships going to people in work for six months is lower than it was when the Labour Party was in office. In other words, there are more people not in work among the 26,000 now than there were, as a percentage, when the Labour Party was in office. How on earth can that be presented as anything with a semblance of an argument?
It is important to learn lessons. The key lesson that I would learn from the years of Margaret Thatcher is that political parties that go into coalition with the Conservatives in campaigns in Scotland will have exactly the same fate as the Conservative Party. Johann Lamont, in believing that she can campaign hand in glove with better together but that people in Scotland will not draw the obvious conclusion about the direction of her politics, is living in a fantasy land. She and her party will pay the highest price for their joint cabal and campaign with the Conservative Party. That is a certain conclusion that the people of Scotland will draw.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01298)
Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
A few days ago, Sean McLaughlin was sentenced to 10 years for culpable homicide. A career criminal with more than 50 convictions, McLaughlin should have been in jail, rather than being free to stab Robert Brown repeatedly in Mr Brown’s girlfriend’s house. McLaughlin had more than a year of his most recent sentence still to serve, but he had been released early under the Government’s automatic early release scheme.
In both his 2007 and 2011 manifestos, the First Minister promised to end automatic early release, yet no proposed legislation has come before the chamber, and there is no hint that any is due. He could have put such a measure in his Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, which was published two months ago, but there is still no sign of an end to automatic early release. If the First Minister had acted much earlier, Robert Brown could still be alive. Why is the First Minister refusing to fulfil the promises that he made to protect Scottish communities?
I point out, in terms of fact, that when we revoke automatic early release, which was introduced by the Conservative Party, the policy cannot and will not apply to retrospective cases. I do not think that anybody has ever suggested that it should. The question that I have just been asked by Ruth Davidson is factually wrong—unless that she is arguing that the policy should be introduced for retrospective cases. If that is what she is arguing, perhaps she should say that to the Parliament.
A party that introduced the provision that Ruth Davidson is complaining about and which does not recognise the extraordinary achievement of Scotland having the lowest level of recorded crime in more than 30 years is very poorly placed to talk about individual tragic examples when the implication of the policy that she is suggesting is that it would not apply retrospectively.
I fully accept that it was the Conservative Government that introduced automatic early release, but it was that same Conservative Government that legislated to end it. The Scottish Government has had six years but has done nothing. That is not good enough. The First Minister promised the people of Scotland—not once, but twice—that, if the Scottish National Party were put into government, it would end automatic early release. He has a clear majority in the chamber and he has cross-party support, so why not act?
So far, the Government has found time in the parliamentary schedule for a debate on a war that happened 10 years ago, for which the Parliament has no responsibility, and for countless debates without any vote.
This matters, because also this month Reece Fleming was tried for raping a teenage girl at knifepoint in front of her wheelchair-bound mother, forcing the mother to watch. If the current policy is not changed, he will be out in just over two years. That is not the kind of Scotland that anyone wants. The First Minister has promised us twice that he will get this done, so will he bring forward the necessary legislation now?
I noticed that Ruth Davidson did not challenge my correction of her original question, in which I pointed out that the policy could not apply retrospectively, so the premise of her original question was entirely wrong. When she introduces such subjects, perhaps she should rethink and look carefully at how her question would or would not apply.
We have made our position very clear: we intend to revoke the provisions on early release. We are doing that on a timescale that is consistent with the McLeish review, which instructed us on how it should best be done. However, the idea that we should not proclaim from this Parliament a criminal justice record of having achieved the lowest level of recorded crime in over 30 years is very strange. Perhaps the Conservative Party would find something to learn from the Police Service of Scotland’s confidence in this Government’s policies, compared with the lack of confidence that the police service in England has in the policies being invoked from London at present.
Finally, it is remarkable to suggest—for what reason, I do not know—that a debate on Iraq was not a sensible and proper one for this Parliament to have, given the impact that Iraq has had on tens of thousands of people across this country and hundreds of thousands of people elsewhere. Of course Parliament should debate such subjects—that is right and proper. Given the mistakes of the past, many of which were committed by Conservative Governments, perhaps this Parliament, when it has the proper powers, will not repeat them in future.
I have a constituency question from Gordon MacDonald.
A number of companies in the Edinburgh area are involved in the production of computer games, and the question of tax relief is an important consideration in retaining and attracting companies. Is the First Minister aware of the European Commission’s proposals to investigate the tax reliefs offered to the games industry by the United Kingdom Government? Does the First Minister agree that those reliefs are vital support for this dynamic sector? Will the Scottish Government make representations to both the UK Government and the Commission to ensure that the reliefs are not threatened?
The member makes a very important point. I am aware of the decision announced by the European Commission on Tuesday to investigate the proposed tax base for the computer games sector. It is an important sector that employs some 600 people in Scotland. That is why, alongside the industry, the Scottish Government pressed the UK Government for some years to introduce the tax breaks. Now that the UK Government has finally accepted that they are a good thing, we will certainly work with it and the industry to put a compelling and convincing case to the Commission. The Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs is writing to the UK’s Minister for Culture, Communication and the Creative Industries on exactly that subject.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01302)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
I was pleased to see that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, which was published today, proposes expanded provision for nursery education for three and four-year-olds so that provision here will roughly match provision in England. However, I was disappointed to see that two-year-olds in Scotland will still be left behind. At this late stage, will the First Minister see sense and provide nursery education for 24,000 two-year-olds in Scotland?
I welcome Willie Rennie’s welcome for the bill. I also welcome what I think was a recognition of the importance of the 600-hour commitment, having inherited in 2007—I think that I remember this correctly—412 hours. The 600-hour commitment is hugely important to families across Scotland.
As gently as I could, I have chided Willie Rennie before about the reality of what is happening in England and Wales. I have a range of quotes from experts in the field that suggest that there are serious questions to answer. It is important that, as we move forward to the proposed level of nursery and childcare provision, we do so on a quality basis that makes a real difference to the lives of young people. I fully accept that this is only the start of a process and a direction that I think are hugely important to the future of this country. However, I hope that Willie Rennie will accept that the assurance that we are giving on statutory, binding quality in Scotland has many things to be said for it in comparison with the lack of standards and the drop in quality elsewhere.
An investigation of the First Minister’s claims about ratios from his own documentation that was published this morning shows that he has omitted to tell us that ratios in Scotland have been poorer than ratios in England for the whole time for which he has been First Minister, so he should not lecture anyone any more about that.
The reality is that, this week, thousands of parents across England are queueing up for 15 hours of nursery education for their two-year-olds. Scottish parents and children are being denied that opportunity by this Government. Rather than settling for the timid Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, will he be bold and match England on two-year-olds?
I am afraid that Willie Rennie is being incomplete in his question. The Scottish ratio for one year and under is 1:3. That is the same as it was in England, which is moving to 1:4, as Willie Rennie should know. Our other ratio has been 1:5, with the English ratio moving to 1:6. That is why Willie Rennie was incomplete in his question.
I thought that the Parliament would like to hear the whole picture, as indeed it will want to hear the views of Professor Cathy Nutbrown, who carried out the review of the UK Government’s strategy on the matter and is now a leading critic of that strategy. She said:
“Watering down ratios will threaten quality. Childcare may be cheaper, but children will be footing the bill.”
Willie Rennie might want to listen to what Naomi Eisenstadt, former director of the sure start unit, said in the past few months:
“I do not think that we have the quality in place to offer those that will make a difference. What we know from the evidence of the evaluation of the two year old pilot was, unless it was high quality, it did not make a difference.”
I could give him a range of other quotations. The chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance, Neil Leitch, said:
“Relaxing childcare ratios will be a recipe for disaster for children. The quality of provision will be lowered, there will be less one-to-one care and it will introduce additional child safety and child protection implications.”
All that I am saying to Willie Rennie is that, as we look at comparisons elsewhere, let us be aware of the deficiencies that are being identified and examined in the system that he is proclaiming by the experts in the field, including the lady who was in charge of the original proposal and suggestion to the UK Government in the first place. Let us see that there is sense in some of the actions that we are taking in Scotland. We are giving the statutory, binding guarantee of ensuring quality and seeing childcare and nursery provision as one of a range of measures, including the nurse planning partnerships and the family centres, which are designed to ensure that our early intervention is as good as we can possibly make it to ensure the future of our young people.
Public Finances (Assessment)
4. To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of Scotland’s public finances. (S4F-01311)
Last week, “Scotland’s Balance Sheet” was published. It provides analysis of public spending and tax receipts in Scotland since 1980 and it shows Scotland in a relatively stronger financial position than the United Kingdom. To take just one example, tax receipts per person have been higher in Scotland than the UK average for each and every one of the past 30 years.
I thank the First Minister for that answer. Yesterday’s figures also showed that Scotland has higher employment and lower unemployment than the rest of the UK. Does he agree that the misguided economic policies of the UK Government are the greatest threat to that progress, and that having the fiscal levers of independence would allow us to build further on it?
Earlier, it was suggested that we talk about things such as youth employment and unemployment only when there are reasons to see success in the initiatives that are being taken. The only time I get asked about general employment and unemployment by the UK parties is when the Scottish figures are worse than those of the UK. It was a substantial bet that I would not be asked about the general level of employment and unemployment given the substantial success that is indicated by the figures this week. [Interruption.]
Order.
Although recovery from recession is, of course, a substantial and exacting process, we have had the largest rise in employment for 12 years. That will perhaps not be regarded as a success by the unionist parties and coalition in this Parliament, but the people of Scotland will see it as part of the process of Scottish recovery, and I know that a lot of people will see it as part of the argument for seeing all the levers of economic control under the aegis of this Parliament so that we can turn that improvement into a real and lasting recovery.
The First Minister published “Scotland’s Balance Sheet” at the weekend. It states that the analysis
“does not consider wider ... liabilities.”
Which wider liabilities have been ignored, and can the First Minister quantify them?
Or assets, for that matter, because it is a balance sheet as opposed to a stock of assets and liabilities. They are two things: one is the flow and one is the stock of assets and liabilities. I hope that that is an answer to the question.
Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Programme
5. To ask the First Minister what progress has been made on changes to the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme. (S4F-01312)
As I am sure that Elaine Murray knows, the Government is making record levels of investment in rail, and the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme is a key part of that record investment.
We have already delivered new services on the Edinburgh to Glasgow via Shotts line, the new hourly Edinburgh to Glasgow via Carstairs service and the Haymarket north tunnel electrification. Network Rail has recently confirmed—this is a very important point—that it remains confident that the route will be electrified by December 2016 as planned.
The First Minister refers to Network Rail’s claims. However, industry sources stated in Scotland on Sunday on 31 March that the first phase of EGIP
“may not be finished until 2019”,
which is three years later than he claims. Which estimate does the First Minister agree with? That of his transport ministers or that of the industry experts?
Elaine Murray referred to the front-page article of 31 March 2013. David Simpson, the Network Rail route managing director, wrote to Scotland on Sunday and his letter was published on 14 April, which is later than the first article. Mr Simpson rejected the asserted delays and said:
“That is not the view of Network Rail ... We remain confident of completing the necessary electrification works, and other related infrastructure projects, between the two cities by 2016 as planned.”
Given that the gentleman took the trouble and time to write to Scotland on Sunday to make that correction, Elaine Murray could have had the courtesy to read his letter—that would have been an improvement.
I know that some Labour sources seem to think that Network Rail’s regulated asset base borrowing somehow comes out of the sky and has nothing to do with the Scottish Government. I point out that we finance the regulated asset base borrowing.
I know that.
Elaine Murray says that she knows that, but the Labour spokesman did not seem to know it in the budget debate, just a few weeks ago.
It is significant that, per capita, our investment is almost double the equivalent investment committed for 2014 to 2019 for England and Wales by the United Kingdom Government: £632 per capita compared with £326. That investment is in not just the improvements to the Edinburgh to Glasgow line and its electrification, but the substantial improvements that have taken place and are taking place across the country. That seems a great investment in the future rail of Scotland.
Third Sector Early Intervention Fund
6. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to address the delay in implementing the third sector early intervention fund. (S4F-01301)
This morning, the Minister for Children and Young People announced the recipients of our £20 million investment in the third sector early intervention fund. In addition, I confirm that it will invest a further £10 million in strategic funding partnerships, making a total investment of £30 million over two years for 140 organisations that provide crucial support for Scotland’s children and families.
I can see Liz Smith smiling at that and no doubt in her press release she will take the credit for forcing the Government to make that announcement. I know that she will also reflect on the fact that that represents an increase of £3 million on the value of previous funds. Given the financial strictures and rigours being imposed by her party colleagues in Westminster, that strikes me as a big success for our third sector early intervention fund.
I am glad that the First Minister knows that I will try to take the credit for it. Notwithstanding today’s very welcome announcement, the Scottish Government will be aware that more than 400 children’s charities and groups, such as the Boys Brigade, the scouts and the guides, have submitted bids that total £73 million and that that large, oversubscribed demand has forced a delay in the allocation of funding. Does the First Minister acknowledge that the delay causes unacceptable uncertainty for those bodies’ financial and strategic planning and, indeed, may jeopardise the future of some of the smaller charities?
Elizabeth Smith should welcome today’s announcements and the increase in funding and perhaps reflect on why there is such a huge demand for these services at the moment and why so many third sector organisations are feeling it necessary to introduce services and intervene in the areas of social welfare that the Government with responsibility for these matters seems to be deserting.
However, let us try to end this question time on a note of consensus. It is good that the £20 million has been announced; it is excellent that the further £10 million has been announced; and it is fantastic that that represents an increase in funding in a budgetary position that I am sure that Elizabeth Smith will agree for all sorts of reasons is highly constrained at the moment. On that note of consensus, let us end this question time.
That ends First Minister’s question time.