First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00405)
I am delighted to announce that, later today, I will officially open the new headquarters of the global financial services firm FNZ, which supports more than 200 jobs in Edinburgh and recruits a large number of graduates. It is yet another example of a global company that supports jobs and investment and is expanding its operations in Scotland.
I am sure that we were all shocked yesterday to learn that every day for the past three months 200 Scots have lost their jobs. Unemployment has gone up 10 per cent over the same period, there has been a 25 per cent rise in the number of women who are unemployed—which must have an impact on families—and over the past year there has been a 123 per cent increase in long-term youth unemployment. In the light of those figures, what changes can we expect in the First Minister’s budget bill when it is published tomorrow?
As Johann Lamont is well aware, the Scottish Government places the highest emphasis on job creation. That has been the hallmark of all the budgets.
The unemployment figures here are extremely serious, as the unemployment figures across these islands are, but Johann Lamont should understand that we in Scotland do not currently have the ability to increase demand in the Scottish economy. That ability lies with the Westminster Government. That is exactly why in the past month the First Minister of Wales, the First Minister of Northern Ireland and I have repeatedly called for the United Kingdom Government to change economic direction and give us either an increase in demand now or the economic tools to do the job for Scotland.
I know that there is a pattern, but I did not expect to get “hunt the alibi” quite so early.
This is not a game. We can trade figures, but we need to confront them. The reality is that although the First Minister is saying that job creation is his highest priority, it is not working. It seems to me that, although the First Minister has been in power for five years, he simply does not get it. Last summer, he claimed that the unemployment figures demonstrated not that they were not the Scottish Government’s fault, but that
“the economic policy of the Scottish Government is delivering, and is continuing to create and safeguard jobs across our communities”.
When the figures are good, the First Minister is fabulous, but when they are bad, where is that alibi? With 200 Scots losing their jobs each and every day on his watch, does he still stand by the statement that he made in the summer?
If Johann Lamont cares to reacquaint herself with the statements that were made in the summer, she will find that they made it quite clear that the growth in jobs and activity that we saw in Scotland over that period would be put at risk unless the United Kingdom Government was prepared to change course. She and Labour members seem to think that only the Scottish National Party holds that view. I have Labour’s five-point plan for growth, which was announced in November 2011, before the admission last week that Labour’s new economic policy is identical to the Conservative Party’s economic policy. The five-point plan includes a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses, a temporary reversing of January’s VAT rise, a one-year cut in VAT to 5 per cent on home improvements, and a one-year national insurance tax break. Each of those is the province of the Westminster Government. The only area that is the province of the Scottish Government—the switch to capital investment—is exactly the policy that is being pursued by John Swinney, both by transferring revenue to capital and through the non-profit distribution programme.
I do not mind so much—well, I do mind, but I think that people in Scotland mind even more—that the Labour Party is now in cahoots with the Tories both on the constitution and on economic policy. However, I do mind that the Labour Party is in cahoots with the Tories in denying this Parliament the economic tools that it needs to do the job for Scotland.
I am sure that that response will be a great comfort to the 200 people every day for the past three months who have lost their jobs. The First Minister’s response to the serious situation that those families are in is, “It wasnae me. I didn’t do it. Somebody else did it—and by the way, you’ve all got problems and I haven’t”.
This is a man who takes himself seriously—we know that—but it is about time he also took his job seriously. What concerns me is not just his breathtaking complacency about the horrendous unemployment figures, but the fact that he clearly did not see it coming. He now has in his back pocket more than £0.5 billion extra from Westminster as a consequence of budget decisions. Will the First Minister give us and the people who are confronted with unemployment in our communities an assurance that every coin of that money will be spent on tackling unemployment and on giving our young people some hope for the future?
Johann Lamont sounds ever more like her predecessor: he pursued that theme week after week, but it did not do him a great amount of good. The people of Scotland know where the economic power lies at present, which is precisely why they are demanding the economic powers from Westminster.
The classic illustration is the £500 million figure that Johann Lamont has just mentioned. Is she not aware that two thirds of that spending—which is specified by Westminster—is directed into the second part of the comprehensive spending review?
We believe that Scotland needs investment in the economy now. That is precisely why we have jointly with the Labour First Minister of Wales been calling for the change in the economic course of the UK Government that will allow us to deploy those funds. While we have been calling for that change of course, the UK Labour Party has decided to back the Tories on the economy.
I have said it already: I am not playing a game, and I am not pursuing a theme. I am talking about the issues that are of concern to the people of Scotland. At the moment, 200 Scots a day are losing their jobs, and the First Minister settles for party-political jibes.
Given the seriousness of the situation, and the First Minister’s pathetic response, I fear for the people who have lost their jobs and for those who are worried about losing their jobs. An uncaring Prime Minister, and what looks increasingly like an ultracomplacent First Minister, are uninterested in what the people of this country are talking about.
A man who has been in the job for five years must at some point surely take responsibility, but this is a man who wanted Scotland to join an arc of prosperity, which is now an arc of insolvency. This is a man who graduated—[Interruption.]
This is a man who graduated from the Fred Goodwin school of economics and backed the deal that broke the bank—[Interruption.]
Can we have a bit of quiet, please?
I think that members sometimes have a problem with what they are hearing. The reality is—[Interruption.] The reality is that, in the real world, 200 people each and every day are losing their jobs on the First Minister’s watch. When will the First Minister stop congratulating himself on how well he is doing his job and come up with a serious plan to create jobs for the people of this country?
I am afraid that the apolitical script that has been written by Paul Sinclair is no better than the scripts that were written by previous advisers.
Let us have a look at the detail of one of the really serious issues—[Interruption.]
Okay. Can we settle down, please? Enough!
I do not think that the Labour Party will want to look at the detail. Let us have a look at the detail of one of the really serious issues. Unemployment among women in Scotland is 7.8 per cent, which is far too high. The figure is 7.8 per cent in England and 4.7 per cent in Northern Ireland. We might judge from that that Northern Ireland has the best position, but if we look at employment in Scotland—the number of people in jobs—and look at economic activity among women in Scotland, the figures are much higher than in any other part of these islands. However, 7.8 per cent is a substantial and worrying critical figure. That is precisely why the Scottish Government now has 25,000 new modern apprentices in Scotland—40 per cent more than we inherited from the Labour Party. In 2010-11, nearly 10,000 of those were young women, and 45 per cent of modern apprenticeships in Scotland are now started by women, compared to the level of 27 per cent that we inherited from the Labour Party. The same applies to training for work in Scotland, with the number of women getting that opportunity rising fast and, at 36 per cent, the 40,000 women in Scotland who have benefited from European structural funds is a much higher figure than was previously the case. We are doing our bit with the powers that are under our control to rebalance and preserve justice in the economy in Scotland.
Those are the detailed figures. The Labour Party wants detail but does not like it when it gets the detail because it shows up the record that it had. We have an Opposition that has an economic plan that depends on economic policies being changed at Westminster. However, it will not call for the powers for the Scottish Parliament to do that and it now actually supports the economic policies in the House of Commons. It is little wonder that, when I was in the Gulf this week, gaining jobs and investment for Scotland, The Gulf Today led with the headline, “Labour faces poll disaster” on the forecast from Unite the Union.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00398)
Well, it has not been through lack of trying that I have had no recent meetings with the Prime Minister. I am delighted to say that, the cock crowing for the seventh time, the Prime Minister has now agreed to meet me after the Scottish Government publishes the referendum consultation next week. I look forward to that meeting. That shows that persistence always pays off, even when one is meeting the Prime Minister.
I am sure that the First Minister is looking forward to meeting the Prime Minister. As he explained, it is proper to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the first instance, because he is leading the process for the Government.
The First Minister’s goal is to separate Scotland from the United Kingdom and to replace those enduring links with ever-closer union with the European Union. Can the First Minister tell me how many times he or the Scottish Government has written to the relevant EU commissioner, asking about Scotland’s accession to the European Union?
We have discussed a range of issues with European Commissioners over the years. I hope and believe that Ruth Davidson is familiar with the very substantial legal opinion that would secure Scotland’s position within the European Union. One of the most famous opinions was, I believe, commissioned by the Scottish Conservative Party from Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the only Scottish judge to preside over the European Court of Justice. Unfortunately, the Scottish Conservative Party did not get the opinion that it thought it would get, as Lord Mackenzie-Stuart pointed out that Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom would be in exactly the same position with regard to the European Union.
I know that the idea that Scotland as a nation would stand in equality with other nations is a difficult concept for the Conservative Party. That is perhaps why Ruth Davidson, in her first question, seems to suggest a new constitutional formulation whereby the First Minister of Scotland gets to meet the Prime Minister only if he first goes through the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is appointed by the Prime Minister.
That was an extraordinarily long way of giving me no specifics at all on a very simple question. We know for a fact that, for example, the current Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, Štefan Füle, has never received correspondence from the Scottish Government on the topic, which begs the question: who has the Scottish Government been in contact with and what advice has been given?
In 2007, the Scottish National Party asserted in a published document that an independent Scotland would continue in the EU, and the First Minister continues to make that assertion. However, the former president of the European Commission Romano Prodi; European commissioners Franz Fischler and Joe Borg; Professor Robert Hazell and Dr Jo Murkens, who are experts on government and constitutional law; and even the International Law Commission say that that is not the case. They all say that Scotland would have to reapply to be a member of the EU, with the consequence that our farmers would be bankrupt without European payments while Scotland waited for renegotiation, and Scotland would be forced to adopt the euro on accession.
The First Minister believes that, if he says something often enough, it becomes fact, but the Scottish people demand more than mere assertion. The weight of expert opinion is that Scotland would not become automatically a member of the European Union. Will the First Minister publish any evidence that he has to support his claim, because the people of Scotland deserve an answer to the question?
I offer the evidence of Emile Noël, former secretary-general of the European Union, and Eamonn Gallagher, former director-general of the European Union, who, along with Maître de Roux, who edited a dictionary of the European Union, have indicated that Scotland is part of the European Union and, since the European Union has no provision to expel a member state or any part of a member state, the negotiation on Scotland’s representation would be conducted from within the European Union.
In the question, I think that Ruth Davidson actually said that there would be a disaster with European payments. However, I had thought that the Conservative Party’s position is that the European Union would face disaster without the payments to it from the United Kingdom. The Conservative Party had better reconcile those two things. The only conceivable threat to Scotland’s current membership of the European Union comes from members of Ruth Davidson’s party in the House of Commons who openly advocate the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. Scotland is a European nation. As expert and legal opinion indicates, we would put our position from within the context of the European Union.
The concept of Scotland as a nation standing in equality with other nations might be difficult for the Conservative Party to grasp—which probably explains its latest record low in the poll ratings this week—but the Scottish people do not find it at all difficult. Hence the SNP’s resounding position not just in the opinion poll ratings, but in being with the Scottish people in regarding Scotland as a nation that is equal and capable of exercising that equality in Europe, along with all the other European nations.
We have a constituency supplementary question from Sandra White.
The First Minister will be aware of the proposed cuts at BBC Scotland and, in particular, the axing of “Newsweek Scotland” and “Scotland at Ten”. Does the First Minister share my concerns about that, particularly about the effect on political debate in Scotland, especially at the current historic juncture when there is a need for a full and informed debate on our future? Does he agree that the only way in which to achieve that is to have control of our own broadcasting company?
In a time of such significance for Scotland, I have deep concerns about the potential impact of job losses and programming cutbacks to BBC Scotland’s output, particularly in relation to news and current affairs. I recognise that the BBC is being forced to make difficult decisions because of the damaging licence-fee settlement that the UK Government has imposed. That reinforces why Scotland needs greater accountability and responsibility for broadcasting in our country. [Interruption.] I hope that even one or two of the Conservative members who are mumbling—I was going to call them the serried ranks, but that sounds too big for the Conservative Party in Scotland—are actually concerned about the jobs of people who work in news and current affairs in BBC Scotland.
The First Minister will be familiar with Sangs of Macduff from his time representing Banff and Buchan. Does he share the concerns that are being expressed regarding the conduct of Allied Irish Banks in placing the firm in administration, in spite of the insistence of the owner in Wednesday’s Press and Journal that there is no cash-flow problem and nor has the company ever defaulted on a loan or supplier payment? Can he advise me of whether the Scottish Government has contacted the administrator and AIB to ascertain what has occurred and to ensure that the future of the business is secured?
This is the second time in two weeks that a member has asked about a constituency concern that involves the conduct of financial organisations or other people around companies that have been moved into administration. I know that Fergus Ewing met Michael McMahon this morning about the question he asked last week.
I am aware of Sangs’s situation, and I share the concerns about it. Yesterday, Fergus Ewing wrote to the company’s administrators about the position. On the point about the conduct of AIB, Mr Ewing will speak to the bank later today to discuss its approach and seek an urgent meeting. I can confirm that, of course, partnership action for continuing employment representatives are on standby to offer support, and they will maintain close contact with the administrators.
The details that Mark McDonald has brought to the chamber about the company’s trading position, profitability and lack of exposure and debt, should give every one of us the most serious concerns. In the current economic position, the very least we can expect is that lenders, banks and financial organisations are as supportive as possible of companies in Scotland. If the information that has come into the public domain is anything like accurate, the most serious questions will have to be asked in this particular case.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00404)
The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
A year ago, the First Minister’s Government told us that national control of the police and the abolition of local policing would save £200 million a year. At the time, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice admitted that the numbers were not
“pound perfect in any way”—[Official Report, 12 January 2011; c 32006.].
So what is the annual saving in the Government’s plans that were published this week?
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice set out the plans and anticipated savings under a range of scenarios. That statement seemed to attract substantial support from across the chamber, and most people in Scotland seem to believe—rightly—that we are offered substantial savings through having a national police service in Scotland.
Of course, the Liberal Democrats are perfectly entitled to take a different view. I just point out to Willie Rennie that they took that different view very volubly during the election—in fact, it is the only thing I can remember them saying during the election in Scotland—and the election result did not indicate resounding support for their position.
The First Minister has obviously not read the document. He does not know the annual figure, which is the basis on which he proposed his plans. I can tell him that his own document makes it clear that almost all the headline figures that he cites are not attributable to structure—the savings that are described in the document are not attributable to the proposed changes. The First Minister promised us £200 million but he has sold us national political control of the police for nothing.
Perhaps the First Minister has seen the chart that shows the structure of the review that is being done. The project board is made up of two deputy chief constables, a chief superintendent, a superintendent, two chief inspectors, an inspector, another inspector and a sergeant, all of whom have been taken from front-line duty to deal with governance and structure, and there are 12 other units like them. Is it just those officers who are working on reorganisation or are there more?
I would have thought that most people would welcome the fact that the people who are looking at the organisation of the new police service in Scotland are serving police officers. It is an important innovation by Government to ask the people who do the job to formulate the plans for the future.
I also gently point out to Willie Rennie that, if his party had had its way, we would not have 1,000 extra police officers on the streets and in the communities of Scotland, or the lowest level of recorded crime in Scotland for more than 30 years. The savings that have been identified in Kenny MacAskill’s central assumption were £1.7 billion over 15 years. I hope that that convinces Willie Rennie of my reading abilities.
As we see from The Herald newspaper this morning, the Liberal Democrats have arrived at a position that the Advocate General—a post that is held by Lord Wallace, who sits in a non-elected house and was appointed by the party that came fourth in the Westminster election, and resoundingly fourth in the Scottish election last year—appears to know better than the democratic Parliament that has been elected by the Scottish people, and better than the Lord President, who is the highest judicial officer in Scotland. In the future, Willie Rennie should be the last person to talk about politicians dictating to the people.
As usual, when he loses the argument, the First Minister resorts to cheap shots. He would do better to focus on the withdrawal of the local connection between the police and communities. He should be concerned about that—not about taking cheap shots at other politicians.
I am afraid that Willie Rennie lost even the support of his coalition partners at Westminster in making that point.
Willie Rennie describes my position on the Advocate General dictating to the Scottish judiciary and the Scottish Parliament as “taking cheap shots”; I regard it as being a very serious constitutional position. Perhaps, when he has the opportunity to think about it further, he will agree with me.
The basic disagreement between Willie Rennie, who proposes that we keep the current structure of eight police forces in Scotland, and the rest of us, who think that the single police service offers economies, efficiencies and further improvements in police performance, is essentially about local policing. When we think of local police, most of us think of the local constables, sergeants and superintendents who serve our communities throughout Scotland and the 1,000 extra officers that we now have doing that. Willie Rennie seems to think that local policing is about having eight chief constables in Scotland, whereas we think that it is about local officers on the streets and in the communities of Scotland.
International Business Connections
4. To ask the First Minister what progress is being made in building international business connections. (S4F-00407)
I have already mentioned the fact that I will officially open the headquarters of the global financial services company FNZ in Edinburgh later today. I hope that that will be recognised and welcomed across the chamber.
On Tuesday, at the world future energy summit in Abu Dhabi, I signed an agreement with His Excellency Dr Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, the chief executive of the leading alternative energy company Masdar. It is the first agreement of its kind between Masdar and a nation and will lead to significant collaboration, resulting in investment in low-carbon projects, development opportunities and a partnership to boost Scottish universities’ research into renewable energy.
I welcome both those developments. Does the First Minister agree that Westminster politicians should support the Scottish Government’s efforts to attract investment to Scotland instead of pettily fearmongering that there is uncertainty about the referendum—a claim for which they have been unable to produce a single shred of evidence?
I am beginning to get somewhat perplexed by Opposition politicians in the Parliament telling me that they are concerned about unemployment and investment in Scotland while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—supported in this, as they are in so much else, by the Labour spokesman at Westminster—try to damage investment in Scotland.
Therefore, we should all be grateful to the widely respected Channel 4 news factcheck blog—which is not, incidentally, owned by the Scottish Government or Alex Salmond—which, this week, totally demolished the claims of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It pointed out not only that Scotland punches way above its weight in attracting international investment, but that that percentage is increasing and that, last year, for the first time, Scotland attracted more international investment jobs than the City of London. It concludes:
“Alex Salmond ... is right to claim Scotland is a bonnie investment. And according to the companies we spoke to, the matter of Scottish independence is of little concern.”
I think that the Scottish people would rather take the word of Channel 4 factcheck than any unionist politician, when they look at their self-interest and how they are prepared to attempt to damage Scotland’s economic prospects to pursue a political argument.
Further Education Colleges
5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government supports the aims of the National Union of Students Scotland campaign, our future, our fight. (S4F-00399)
Yes. The Scottish Government supports the principal aims of the campaign by NUS Scotland, which is why the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning made it clear in his letter to college principals last week that they will receive funding in the next academic year to allow college places to be maintained.
I am sure that the 60,000 students who have e-mailed members throughout Parliament, protesting at the disproportionately high cuts to college places, local access, teaching quality and—especially—student support will be very interested in the First Minister’s response.
Senior managers, principals and trade unions have raised similar concerns. Will the First Minister show leadership and accept that at a time of extremely high youth unemployment, it will be impossible to maintain student numbers while colleges are subjected to a £36 million cut in teaching grant and an £11 million cut in student support?
First Minister—
I am not finished yet.
You are finished.
Oh, come on!
Neil Findlay will want to look at student support, which compares extremely favourably with what is on offer elsewhere in these islands. The commitment on places in the cabinet secretary’s letter stands, as do the Scottish National Party’s manifesto commitments.
I am never very sure which Neil Findlay I am hearing from in this chamber. I am sure that people would be interested to learn, for example, that when West Lothian Council held a budget meeting on 11 January, a councillor—Neil Findlay—voted against increasing resources to support 30 more young people into work through a range of interventions.
Members: Oh!
I see Neil Findlay nodding. I look forward to hearing how MSP Neil Findlay will work to stop Councillor Neil Findlay from trying to prevent opportunities for West Lothian’s young people. [Applause.]
Robert Wiseman Dairies (Sale)
6. To ask the First Minister what impact the sale of Robert Wiseman Dairies to Müller Dairy will have on the Scottish economy. (S4F-00400)
As the member will be aware, Robert Wiseman Dairies has accepted an offer of £279.5 million from German company Müller Dairy. Wiseman currently processes and delivers around a third of the fresh milk consumed in the United Kingdom and employs 1,000 people in Scotland. More than 1,000 producers are contracted to supply the company as members of the Wiseman milk group. A quarter of those producers farm in Scotland from milk fields in Aberdeenshire, Fife, the central belt and south-west Scotland.
The Scottish Government has made it clear to Wiseman and Müller that it wants the takeover to have the effect of protecting jobs and investment. On Tuesday this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment met William Keane, the managing director of Robert Wiseman Dairies, and received assurance that the Wiseman brand will maintain its existing presence in the Scottish dairy market.
It was also made clear to the cabinet secretary that for farmers, there will be no change to the current milk contract as a direct result of the takeover. Shareholders of Wiseman have 21 days to consider the takeover. I will meet senior representatives from Müller as soon as possible after that period is over.
I am surprised that the First Minister seems to be so sanguine about the loss of another Scotland-headquartered company when in opposition the SNP took a different view. When Scottish Power was taken over by Iberdrola, the now Deputy First Minister said that
“it is now time for some explicit economic patriotism”
and that we should defend our national companies
“when they are under threat of extinction.”
That, she said
“is what grown-up national Governments do the world over”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2005; c 18931-18932.]
Why does the SNP say one thing in opposition and something quite different when it gets into government?
I thought that Murdo Fraser, in lodging his question, wanted a serious account of what the Scottish Government is doing and has done to protect jobs in Scotland and contracts in the rural industries of Scotland. If we want to have a political debate about it, I might add that Murdo Fraser and I support the sort of economic powers that will allow us to build a competitive base to ensure that there is more decision making in Scotland.
Murdo Fraser seems to be recanting the policy that he took into the Scottish Conservative leadership election. Who knows, if the Scottish Conservatives had adopted more of the approach to economic decision making that may or may not be favoured by Murdo Fraser now, perhaps—just perhaps—its slide in the opinion polls, as recorded this week, would not have been as rapid.
12:34
Meeting suspended.
14:15
On resuming—