Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03180)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Yesterday, the First Minister’s poverty adviser said that 56 per cent of children in poverty live in working households. Those are children whose mums and dads go out to work but still struggle to make ends meet. Naomi Eisenstadt says in her report that investment in quality, affordable early learning and childcare is crucial.
The First Minister claims that all three and four-year-olds have access to 16 hours of free early learning and childcare a week. That sounds good, but parents know that it is not true. Time and again, I meet mums who tell me that they cannot get for their child the place that they are told is their right. Last year, the First Minister said in the chamber that she was working with councils to deliver on her pledge, so will she tell us whether council funding to deliver the 16 hours of free early learning and childcare has gone up or down in the draft budget for next year?
I welcome the report that the poverty adviser published yesterday. It is a solid report that makes a number of recommendations that the Government will consider very seriously. I note that she says that the policy decisions taken by the Scottish Government
“have been important in protecting people from poverty”.
As Kezia Dugdale is well aware, the Government currently funds 16 hours of childcare a week for three and four-year-olds and for vulnerable two-year-olds. I have said in the past and it remains the case that, as well as funding that provision in a global sense, we are working with councils to improve flexibility so that provision better fits in with parents’ working patterns. As was reflected in the poverty adviser’s report, we are also determined to double the provision of childcare over the life of the next parliamentary session, should the people of Scotland re-elect us in May. That is important to parents who are listening to the debate.
The poverty adviser said yesterday that, as well as quantity, quality is important. That is why, yesterday, I announced £1 million to pilot different ways of delivering that expanded childcare.
That is our policy on childcare. We will be judged in just a couple of months on our record on that and many other things. I am still waiting to hear what Labour’s policy is.
In all of that, there was not even an attempt to answer the question that I asked. The honest answer is that the Government’s budget is cutting council childcare funding. The First Minister’s poverty adviser rightly tells her that affordable and flexible childcare is key to helping people who are in work to get out of poverty, but the Scottish National Party Government’s solution is to cut the childcare budget and slash funding for local services.
We know that the First Minister’s promises on childcare are not being delivered, so what about her latest pledge to almost double the number of free childcare hours by 2020? A few months ago, she was asked in the chamber about how those plans would be delivered. She said:
“We are working with local authorities to determine the expansion of capacity that will be required. That will be a mixture of new build and extension of current local authority capacity.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2015; c 13.]
Two months on, will she tell us how many extra nurseries need to be built to deliver on that promise?
Let me take Kezia Dugdale’s points in order. Under our current policy, we are funding the expansion of childcare to which we committed in the Parliament. I remind people who may be listening that, in 2007, three and four-year-olds were entitled to 412.5 hours of free childcare a year. We have extended that by 45 per cent to 600 hours for three and four-year-olds and taken the additional step of extending the policy to vulnerable two-year-olds. That is the measure of the commitment.
The policy that Kezia Dugdale refers to is for the next session. I am delighted that she clearly thinks that after the election I will be in the position of delivering that commitment; I take that as a welcome endorsement of the SNP’s election campaign at this early stage. As I have previously said in the chamber—I think, on that occasion, in response to Ruth Davidson—we are doing detailed work with local authorities to plan now for that expansion, which will take place over the next session.
There will be a mix; we do not yet know exactly what that mix will be, because we are still planning for the expansion, but it will involve a mix of new build—which is why I have described this as the biggest or the most important capital investment of the next session—and existing buildings that local authorities already use. As I have said, it will also involve childminders, and one of the proposals that Naomi Eisenstadt made yesterday related to what is called blended childcare.
We are taking forward the proposals seriously, carefully and robustly. I repeat that Kezia Dugdale has still to set out Labour’s childcare policy. I know what my policy is, and I know the work that we are doing to deliver it, but we seem to have a vacuum coming from the Labour benches.
The First Minister does not know how many nurseries she needs, but campaigning mums do. The campaigning group fair funding for our kids estimates that the equivalent of 650 new nurseries would have to be built to accommodate the extra places that would be needed because of the First Minister’s latest pledge. She has described this as the biggest capital investment of the next session, but John Swinney’s budget cuts council capital funding for nurseries by 56 per cent. By the First Minister’s admission, delivering on her new pledge would cost £880 million in running costs alone, but at the same time, she is taking half a billion pounds out of council budgets.
Let us get this absolutely clear. The First Minister needs 650 new nurseries, but she has cut the capital budget to build them, and she needs £880 million to expand childcare services, but she has slashed council budgets by £500 million. Only in the world of the SNP will that deliver a childcare revolution.
The First Minister’s childcare policy is a mess. Is she hoping that parents are just too busy to notice?
To be fair to Kezia Dugdale, I know that her day-to-day working experience right now involves a rather large mess, otherwise known as the Labour Party. No wonder the word is uppermost in her mind. [Interruption.]
Order.
In her flurry of statistics, Kezia Dugdale has forgotten some of the key points. First, she mentioned capital funding for local authorities. She will be aware—or, if she is not aware, she certainly should be, because John Swinney has outlined it—that the capital budget for local authorities has been reprofiled. [Interruption.]
Order.
Money will be reallocated for local authorities in future years.
As for the overall council budgets, as I said last week and I think the week before, we are looking at a 2 per cent reduction in the overall revenue expenditure of local authorities, and that is before we take account of additional resources for social care, additional resources through the attainment fund and of course the additional investment that we plan over the life of the next session to transform the provision of childcare.
I say again that those are our plans. We have set them out, and we will set out the budgets that support them. If Kezia Dugdale really wants to give people in this country a choice in just a few months’ time, she has to do more than whine from the Opposition benches. She has to give an alternative, and so far, there ain’t no alternative from the Labour Party whatsoever.
There we go. It is not a 56 per cent cut—it has just been reprofiled.
Almost a year ago, the First Minister told me that she had looked campaigning mums “in the eye” and told them that she would fix Scotland’s childcare problems. However, after meetings with Nicola Sturgeon and her education secretary, the more parents hear, the less they believe.
The First Minister says, “Judge me on my record.” Here it is: promises not delivered, budgets cut and parents let down. Is it not the case that, instead of delivering what families really need, the SNP’s childcare plan is just one great big con?
Kezia Dugdale knows that we have, and John Swinney has, guaranteed local government a maintained share of the overall Scottish Government capital budget. That is the reality. It might not suit the Labour Party’s increasingly desperate narrative, but nevertheless those are the facts.
To come back to the central issue, I can point to the Government’s achievements in childcare over the life of this session and of the previous session: three and four-year-olds are entitled to 45 per cent more childcare now than when Labour was in office, and two-year-olds are entitled to childcare that they were not entitled to when Labour was in office. Not only that, but I can point to clear plans for how we will transform childcare over the next session. As the poverty adviser says, not only are we allowing more parents and in particular mothers to get into work, but we are supporting young people to have the best start in life.
Those are our achievements and plans, and the people of Scotland will judge them. When they are making that judgment, they will also look at what the alternative is. I say again that Kezia Dugdale has said zero about what the Labour Party will do for childcare. That is why the people of Scotland are casting their judgment on Labour, and their judgment is to keep Labour firmly in opposition.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-03179)
No plans at present.
This morning we learned that the number of school inspections has fallen from 491 in 2004-05 to just 137 last year, a drop of more than 70 per cent. Inspections are a vital means of providing parents with the necessary information to make decisions about their children’s schooling. However, last year, fewer than 6 per cent of Scotland’s schools were inspected, meaning that under the Scottish National Party a child can go right through their school career without ever having had their school assessed. If that rate keeps up, it would take 19 years to get round all of Scotland’s schools once. Given that, does the First Minister think that parents are getting the information that they deserve when it comes to looking at local schools?
Let me say two things about that. First, as Ruth Davidson knows, Education Scotland undertakes a wide range of different activities to promote quality assurance and improvement in the quality of the education that is provided by our schools. The number of full inspections that are undertaken varies from year to year. During the period of implementation of curriculum for excellence, a deliberate and, I think, very correct decision was taken to reallocate resources to other improvement activities in order to oversee implementation of curriculum for excellence. During that period, inspectors were deployed to undertake intensive support and challenge activities with both schools and local authorities. It is important to point out that that work was recognised in the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which in relation to CFE implementation said:
“Education Scotland has been a linchpin in providing the guidance resources and quality assurance.”
What Ruth Davidson will also presumably be aware of, because I saw the chief inspector write in The Sunday Times to this effect just a few days ago, is that there will be an increase in inspections over the coming years, complemented by new types of improvement activity, in particular those that make sure that we are using the resource of the new attainment advisers, who are working on the Scottish attainment challenge. That is the first thing that I want to say.
The second thing that I would say, very briefly, is that Ruth Davidson knows my commitment, as set out in the national improvement framework that I published in the first week of January, to vastly expanding and transforming the range of information that is available to parents and to the wider public about performance in our schools. As a result of the national improvement framework, within the next couple of years people will be able to look at and compare pupils’ performance in each school. That is the direction of travel that we are headed in and I think that it is the right one.
It was a straight question but the First Minister did not seem to want to give a straight answer, so I will. No, parents are not getting the information that they deserve; instead, they are being told by the education establishment that it knows best and that everybody else will just have to lump it. One former director of education said in the press this morning that inspections are now
“virtually useless as a source of information for parents.”
The First Minister, today and on previous days, has urged Opposition parties to offer proposals on how to improve a system if they complain about it, so we say that it is time to re-establish an independent inspectorate that is outwith the arms of the Scottish Government, so that parents know that, when their school is measured, that is done by people who are entirely separate from those who set the policy. We want more transparency and information for parents. We want an inspection regime that demands high standards and improvement from coasting schools and, crucially, we want parents to be given regular and up-to-date information. Does the First Minister back that plan?
The inspectorate is independent, and it does demand high standards from schools. Local authorities also have a statutory duty to ensure that the quality of education is what we would expect.
I have already outlined what the inspectorate was focusing on, and the reasons for that, during implementation of curriculum for excellence, as well as the plans to increase the number of inspections over the next few years. However, I actually want to do much more than Ruth Davidson has outlined—I want to give parents and the public direct information about the performance of pupils in our primary schools and lower secondary schools because, at the moment, we do not really have that.
Once the national improvement framework is firmly established, we will see the percentages of pupils in every primary school across our country who are achieving the different required levels of curriculum for excellence. That is a revolution in transparency in Scottish education. For the first time, parents and the public will be able to look at that. They will be able to look at schools that are doing well and those that are doing less well, which will give all of us the information that we need to drive further improvements. Therefore, I am much more ambitious on transparency than Ruth Davidson is.
A number of members want to ask constituency questions.
The First Minister will be aware of the difficulties that are being experienced by Johnston Press. It has identified 21 Scottish titles, ranging from Scotland on Sunday to the Arbroath Herald in my constituency, as being “sub-core”, which has raised concerns about the future of those newspapers. Given the journalistic traditions of some of those titles, their importance to local communities and the jobs that are at stake, will the Scottish Government engage with the company and do what it can to ensure that those newspapers have a future?
I thank Graeme Dey for raising an important question and I give him an assurance that we will seek to engage with the company. As with any company where there is the potential for job losses, the arrangements that we can put in place, primarily through PACE—partnership action for continuing employment—will be available should they be required.
I want to make a wider point about the importance to our democracy of free, vibrant and dynamic media. We will all be concerned at the latest announcement, which comes on the back of a recent announcement about job losses in other areas of the media. We all have a duty to ensure that we have a properly resourced media in this country to hold us all to account as well as to contribute to the national debate that we all want.
It was announced this week that by June at least 80 jobs will be lost at FMC Technologies in my Dunfermline constituency. People in the workforce tell me that the real job-loss figure could be substantially higher, as the current figure does not include contract staff. Given that FMC Technologies has lost 2,000 jobs worldwide since January last year, there is real uncertainty about job security. My constituents feel that if they are paid off now or in the future, there will be very little chance of their finding employment in the oil and gas industry. What action will the First Minister take to support my constituents who work at FMC Technologies at this time of low oil prices and high job losses?
We are of course aware of the situation that the member outlines. The Government will engage with the company. As I said in response to Graeme Dey, we make available to the workforce of any company in that situation the resources of PACE so that we do as much as we can to avoid redundancies and to help those who face redundancy. I am sure that the enterprise minister would be happy to meet the member to discuss that particular case in more detail.
The First Minister will be aware of this morning’s announcement of 100 job losses at Marine Harvest, the bulk of which are in the Highlands and Islands and many of which are in my constituency. That is a large number of jobs for small communities to lose. Will the First Minister ensure that all will be done to assist those who may lose their jobs and will she outline what measures the Government will put in place to help with that serious matter?
Obviously, as is the case with the previous two companies that I have spoken about, this will be a particularly anxious time for employees and their families. The Scottish Government is in contact with the company, which has approached Highlands and Islands Enterprise to identify redeployment opportunities, and my officials will shortly meet the company to discuss what can be done to support staff.
We remain fully supportive of the sector, which is a key industry for Scotland in the context of supporting employment, particularly in our remote coastal communities. The industry is currently estimated to generate economic activity worth more than £1.8 billion a year in Scotland, supporting more than 8,000 jobs. It is an extremely important sector and the Government’s response will recognise that.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-03176)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
This week I received a letter from Amazon headquarters in London, in which the company boasted that it pays workers £7.20 per hour, even though that is well below the national living wage. The Scottish Government paid almost £1 million to the company just last year. Does the First Minister think that it is wise to reward companies that pay workers such low wages?
All companies should pay the tax that they are due to pay. The Scottish Government, with the limited tax responsibilities that we have, takes tax avoidance very seriously. Of course, I wanted us to have more tax responsibilities—something that Willie Rennie argued vociferously against. We will continue to stand up for fairness and for companies paying the tax that they are due to pay.
I take a different view from the one that Willie Rennie articulated in a debate that we took part in in Dundee on Monday evening, when he seemed to suggest that Fife would be better off without the jobs that are offered by Amazon. I suspect that people who work in the company would take a different view, as well.
I know that the First Minister finds it difficult to listen to anyone else. The question was about wages, not tax. I will leave her to defend low wages—perhaps she is too embarrassed to do so.
No one is saying that Amazon should close. However, I want the Government to support good jobs. Amazon workers have been in touch this week, too, and they confirm what I have said: it is an exceptionally horrible place and the employment agencies cream off money from everyone’s wages. Meanwhile—let me give a wee flag-up that this is about tax—Amazon pays hardly any tax in this country.
The Poverty Alliance, which promotes the living wage, gets a small grant from the Scottish Government. It is a brilliant project. Why does the Scottish Government give Amazon four times as much money to pay low wages as it gives the Poverty Alliance to champion the living wage? Will the First Minister make a commitment not to give any more grants to companies without receiving wage guarantees?
I apologise to Willie Rennie if I misheard his first question. My comments about tax avoidance stand, though, and they stand very strongly.
On the living wage, I hope that Willie Rennie agrees that this Government is, arguably, doing more than any other Government in the United Kingdom to promote the living wage. The living wage accreditation scheme now has more than 400 companies signed up to it, and more people are being paid the living wage in Scotland than in any other UK nation and any other part of the UK outside the south-east of England. That point was recorded in the poverty adviser’s report yesterday.
We will continue to work directly with companies to encourage them to sign up and to pay the living wage. I will ask Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training—we are the only Government in the UK that has a Cabinet minister who is responsible for fair work—to engage directly with Amazon and other companies in order to get more people being paid the living wage. We will take whatever action we require to take to ensure that we are standing up for decent wages for everyone across Scotland.
“State of Working Scotland”
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the Resolution Foundation report, “State of Working Scotland”. (S4F-03181)
I welcome the findings of the Resolution Foundation in the report that it published yesterday—particularly the finding that pay has risen faster in Scotland than in any other nation or region in the United Kingdom. I am proud that this Government’s commitment to the living wage means that 80 per cent of people in Scotland are paid at least the living wage. As I just said, there are more than 400 living wage accredited employers. The rise in pay in Scotland will have contributed to one of the other findings of the report, which is that household incomes in Scotland fell by less than the UK average during the recession.
That is good progress, but there is much work still to do. The Resolution Foundation gives us valuable analysis in ensuring that we continue to build on progress.
I was pleased to see the statistics on employment yesterday which, along with the Resolution Foundation’s report, show that Scotland has the highest wages among the countries of the UK. Scotland is clearly showing that we can tackle inequalities and grow the economy. What action will the First Minister take to build on that good foundation, to increase jobs and wages?
Roderick Campbell is right to note the progress on wages and employment this week. I take this opportunity to welcome yesterday’s figures, which show a rise in employment in Scotland to record levels, and a substantial drop in unemployment.
That is all progress, but there is no room for complacency, which is why we are working to do more on employment and wages. Our economic strategy sets out our mutually supportive goals of increasing competitiveness and tackling inequality, and we will continue to support the living wage accreditation scheme and the work of the fair work convention to make sure that, as employment continues to increase in Scotland, it is in fair work in which people who do a decent day’s work get a decent day’s wage in return.
“Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin”
5.
To ask the First Minister, in light of the fall in oil prices, when the Scottish Government will publish an updated “Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin” focusing on the impact on jobs. (S4F-03190)
The Scottish Government’s focus is absolutely on what we can do to support the industry and the workforce, which is facing uncertainty at what is a worrying time. We continue to do all that we can within devolved powers to help the sector. Last year, I set up the energy jobs task force, which has already helped to support more than 2,500 individuals and 100 employers through the current downturn, and will continue to support the industry to improve collaboration, co-operation and innovation.
I thank the First Minister for that response. It has been more than six months since the last “Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin” was slipped out on the final day of term. In the intervening period, the oil price has dropped to $27 a barrel and is 70 per cent lower today than it was 18 months ago. Industry experts are predicting that it will drop further to $20 a barrel. There have been 65,000 jobs lost already and more are anticipated to be lost. We cannot afford to lose those skills for the future. What action will the First Minister take to protect those jobs? When will she publish a revised bulletin so that we can consider the impact on jobs and the economy?
We will continue to do all that we can within our responsibilities to support the industry and the jobs that depend on it. For example, the Scottish Cabinet will hold a special session on Tuesday next week that will be attended by Lena Wilson, who is the chair of the oil and gas task force. It will look at what the task force has already done and what more it can do to support those in the industry.
I wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday to urge him to agree with me that we should accelerate the finalisation of a city deal for Aberdeen, funded jointly by the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments, so that we can help Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council to invest in the infrastructure that the city needs. We will continue to take all the action that we can take. Of course, we will also continue to call on the UK Government to make sure that there is an appropriate fiscal regime for the North Sea.
I noted the comments that BP made when it announced the regrettable job losses last week that it has confidence in its long-term future in the North Sea. I also noted the comments of Oil & Gas UK about the future of the sector if we do the right things now. We are determined to do the right things now and we call on the UK Government to do likewise.
The First Minister will be aware that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee published a report on Monday that says that the oil and gas sector could have a sustainable future with the correct support. Does the First Minister agree that vocal campaigns for the divestment of pension funds and others from the oil and gas industry are unhelpful, potentially damaging and might, if they are followed, lead to more job losses?
I agree that anything that undermines the industry at this time is unhelpful. I am also aware of the report that Murdo Fraser refers to; it is helpful and is one of the many things that the Cabinet will discuss as we consider how we will continue to give the industry the support that it needs at this time.
Post-study Work Visas
To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the possible reintroduction of the post-study work visa. (S4F-03177)
Since the publication of the Smith commission report, the Government has remained committed to working with our UK counterparts to ensure that a post-study work route is reintroduced in Scotland. That has been raised with the UK Government at a number of meetings at ministerial and official level.
We are therefore deeply disappointed—and I have to say that I am rather angry—that without any real consultation the Secretary of State for Scotland recently indicated that the UK Government has no intention of reintroducing the post-study work visa for Scotland. I understand that the UK Minister for Security and Immigration intends to meet the cross-party post-study-work steering group and I expect and hope that the United Kingdom Government will take the concerns of the Scottish Government and the united voices of Scottish stakeholders fully on board. I believe that there is consensus in Parliament and out there in Scotland that the post-study work visa should be reintroduced. It is time that the UK Government got on and did it.
I thank the First Minister for that answer. Does she agree that not only do the students themselves benefit from being able to work after their studies but the Scottish economy and Scottish society benefit from having those people living here?
I whole-heartedly agree with that. If we are going to invest in educating the best and the brightest people from all over the world, surely it makes sense to try to encourage them, once they graduate from university, to make a contribution to our economy—to give something back to economic and social life here in Scotland.
Of course, we know that people who come to Scotland from all parts of the world make a real and rich contribution to our society, just as Scots who go from here to other parts of the world do there. The UK Government’s actions on this issue are short-sighted and wrong-headed and I urge it to change its mind. If there is any credence whatsoever to what we keep hearing about a respect agenda, the UK Government will recognise the consensus on the issue and do something about it.
Thank you. That ends First Minister’s question time. We now move to members’ business. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Immigration Bill