First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00480)
Meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Last week’s unemployment figures revealed that more jobs are being lost in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. This week, we have been presented with more grim forecasts for the construction and retail sectors in Scotland. The First Minister needs to realise that this is about real people and real jobs. The First Minister’s plan MacB—the one that he boasted about to all who would listen—has clearly failed. Why have one in three of all the jobs that have been lost in the UK in the past three months been Scottish jobs?
The unemployment problem in Scotland and, indeed, across these islands is extremely serious; of that there is no doubt.
Johann Lamont should, in fairness, remember that the employment rate—the percentage of people who are employed in the economy—is significantly higher in Scotland than it is in any other country in these islands and that the inactivity rate, which relates to people who are not in the labour market, is much lower. Those are good things about the job market.
However, the recession and the slow recovery are impacting on the lives of families in Scotland and across these islands. Therefore, should not we turn our attention to what can be done about that through the UK budget that is coming up, by increasing capital spending, which has been demonstrated to be a rapid and effective way of getting people back to work, and by increasing the funding to small and medium-sized businesses, which are the great drivers of employment in the economy, and in relation to which we now know that Merlin as an operation has refused to deliver the full goods that were promised? Let us turn our attention to what can be done. That is what the Scottish Government is doing, and I suggest that all members should act constructively and do the same.
As ever, the First Minister focuses on other people’s responsibilities and not his own. Never mind the budget at UK level—his own budget for jobs and growth could be done under the Trade Descriptions Act.
Last week, the number of young people who are unemployed broke the 100,000 mark. That is unacceptable. What was the First Minister’s response? He had nothing to say. Perhaps he was much too busy falling out with his old pal Donald Trump, falling in with Twitter fan Rupert Murdoch and arguing with the Prime Minister about who knows best how to run a referendum. All the while, more and more young people are being shut out of the job market, with long-term consequences that we should all fear.
To coin a phrase, when will the very man who launched a consultation document in a castle put people before prestige?
The position on youth unemployment is extremely serious. That is why this Government has appointed a Minister for Youth Employment. It is why we are bringing forward initiatives such as the provision of 125,000 modern apprenticeships over the next five years, which is some 60 per cent higher than the level of modern apprenticeships that we inherited. Of course, every modern apprentice in Scotland has a job. That is a critically important feature of our modern apprenticeship system. Above all, it is why we are offering to every 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland who is not in education, training, a job or a modern apprenticeship a guarantee that they will have a training or education opportunity. To me, that is very substantive action to tackle the issue that is before us.
Just a couple of weeks ago, we had a forum for youth employment in Scotland, which united the unions, the employers, a variety of people in the voluntary sector and, indeed, the other political parties. People united to drive against the evil of youth unemployment and the prospect of seeing a lost generation of the kind that was seen in the 1980s. Everyone at that substantial forum signed up to that joint effort. All that I ask Johann Lamont to think about is whether she can bring the good wishes and good will that were expressed on a cross-party basis in that forum into this chamber, and demonstrate to Scotland that every party and every MSP are committed to fighting the evil of youth unemployment.
Of course we support all those across the country who want something to be done. We want the First Minister to get on and do those things that need to be done, because what he is doing is not working.
The First Minister talks about his new Minister for Youth Employment. That is one job for one woman, but what about the other 399 women who are losing their job every day under the SNP Government? Although the First Minister talks about it, and despite the promise that was made by the First Minister at the election to protect public service workers, almost 24,000 people who were delivering public services lost their jobs last year. The First Minister chose to pass on 89 per cent of the cuts to local government, so it was inevitable that women would bear the brunt of those cuts. Female unemployment is at its highest since records began. Why has the First Minister broken his promise to protect those public sector jobs?
I have two or three things to say about Labour’s approach to such matters. If I remember correctly, Labour demanded in this chamber the appointment of a minister for youth employment. What is the point of demanding something and then deriding it once the initiative has been taken? Labour voted against having 25,000 modern apprenticeships a year in Scottish society. Two weeks ago, Labour also voted against the increase in capital spending in the budget that John Swinney presented to members.
Labour is calling for action. Of course, it has its five-point plan for growth, four of which are issues for the United Kingdom Government. Four out of five of Labour’s points in its plan for growth are issues for the UK Government. How on earth can Johann Lamont say that we should not be calling on the UK Government to do things when that is what Labour’s plan is?
On the extraordinarily serious issue of women’s employment in the workforce, we should remember that female employment in Scotland is higher than it is elsewhere in these islands. Let me tell Johann Lamont what we are doing to ensure that women in our workforce are given their equal and proper status. In 2008-09, 2,857 young women went into modern apprenticeships; that was 27 per cent of the total of modern apprenticeships. Two years later, in 2010-11, in a much larger group, 9,656 young women went into modern apprenticeships, which was almost 45 per cent of modern apprenticeships. I would like to see that figure even higher.
It ill behoves a party that had a low number of modern apprenticeships and a minute percentage of women entering the programme to criticise a party that has increased modern apprenticeships by 60 per cent, and the number of young women who are taking that life opportunity by fully 20 per cent. Let us see whether Johann Lamont has the grace to welcome that substantial improvement in female participation in the workforce.
It is breathtaking complacency on the part of the First Minister, in the face of unemployment figures that must make his blood run cold, to find figures and suggest that everything is okay. On the very day that those shocking unemployment figures were released, the First Minister was in London giving a lecture about separation. Rather than lecturing people in England, perhaps he could take advice from the Labour Government in Wales and those in other parts of the UK where the figures have got better not worse. In Scotland, unemployment is heading towards the 0.25 million mark on the First Minister’s watch. Instead of focusing all his energies on running a referendum campaign, when will the First Minister get on with the job of running the country and addressing people’s real concerns?
I asked whether Johann Lamont would have the grace to acknowledge the huge improvement in the number of young women who are entering the workforce. Perhaps that was not a question that should have been asked, because the answer was pretty obvious.
Johann Lamont mentioned Wales, but I am not certain that that is the best route for her to take. Unemployment in Wales is currently at 9 per cent, which is high compared with the 8.6 per cent in Scotland. In the past year, the rate in Wales has gone up by 0.7 per cent compared with 0.6 per cent in Scotland. The unemployment situation in Wales and Scotland is serious, but it is slightly worse in Wales than it is in Scotland. That is why the First Minister of Wales and I have called jointly for the action from the UK Government that we realise is necessary to address the employment crisis.
One of the keys to addressing the issue is to do exactly what this Government did two years ago by bringing forward capital investment. The Conservative Party has adopted the Labour Party’s capital budget—the one left to it by Alistair Darling—which has deeper and tougher cuts than those of Margaret Thatcher. However, last week there was a chink of light. In my discussion with the Prime Minister, I said, “Isn’t capital investment the way to drive forward the economy, not in two or three years’ time, but at this particular moment?” He asked us to submit a list of shovel-ready capital projects for his consideration, and that is exactly what we will do. When that list of new school buildings, hospitals and roads, and a new repair budget, is submitted, I hope that the initiative will at least have the support of the Labour Party in order to try to break the stranglehold of Westminster Government on the capital budget of Scotland.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00470)
I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister, having met him last week.
Last Thursday, the Deputy First Minister was caught out on a radio programme when she suggested that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development endorsed a claim that an independent Scotland would be the sixth-richest country by gross domestic product in the group, and the First Minister has himself cited that figure in this chamber. Will he confirm that the statistics are not in fact endorsed by the OECD and are not official?
They are Government statistics that we have placed in the Scottish Parliament library. The OECD rankings are for the countries in the organisation, and yes, an independent Scotland, in terms of gross domestic product per head, would be sixth in the rankings. That seems to support Ruth Davidson’s comments on “Brian Taylor’s Big Debate” last May that an independent Scotland would be big enough and rich enough to be an independent country.
Before Ruth Davidson starts to talk about other people being caught out on radio, we should examine the record of her remarkable interview on “Newsnight Scotland”. Faced with the difficulty of trying to reconcile Lord Forsyth and David Cameron’s views on Scotland and the constitution, she produced the remarkable formulation that she agreed with them both simultaneously.
The Prime Minister agrees with me—first we settle separation, then we discuss devolution.
On the issue that I actually raised with the First Minister, last Friday afternoon his adviser was scrabbling hastily around this Parliament’s press tower, handing out a 12-line document supporting the claims about the OECD. The document shows that the estimates of Scotland’s GDP came from the experimental Scottish national accounts project, or SNAP. The figures on which the First Minister relies are on the Scottish Government website, under the heading, “Data Being Developed”, with the cautionary warnings that they
“are not deemed fit for general use”
and
“do not yet meet the rigorous quality standards of National Statistics”,
and that they “are not ‘official’” and—this is my personal favourite—should not
“be the subject of media releases.”
The First Minister needs to stop presenting his assertions as fact and stop manipulating the data to suit his narrow purpose. Did he authorise the release of information based on those figures to the media? If he is prepared to be so slippery on this issue, how can anybody have any faith in anything he ever says?
Yes, I did and yes, I will gladly republish the information through the Scottish Parliament information centre. The calculation is simple—take the GDP of Scotland and then take the bit that is excluded from the United Kingdom Government figures, which is our geographic share of oil and gas production from the North Sea. Members might ask why we should put in oil and gas production for the North Sea. The answer is because that miraculously appears in the United Kingdom Government’s figures; it is excluded only from the Scottish figures allocated by the UK Government.
If Ruth Davidson cares to read Alex Kemp’s magnificent book, “The Official History of North Sea Oil and Gas”, she will find that back in the 1960s a UK chancellor decided to create another country in these islands, called the offshore continental shelf, as a device so that the oil and gas industry could be extracted from the figures for Scotland. We know from the leaks that have come out that at the time successive Governments were being told that an independent Scotland would be richer than Switzerland, while Labour and Tory politicians were telling us that we would be poorer than Bangladesh. Ruth Davidson is on very shaky ground when she tries to defend the exclusion of the oil and gas industry from Scottish statistics.
Before we move off that remarkable interview on “Newsnight Scotland”, Ruth Davidson has just said that we will talk about devolution after settling independence. What has happened to the “line in the sand”, by which she beat Murdo Fraser in the Tory leadership contest? Now that she has been safely elected in that narrow section of the community that is called the Conservative Party, will she follow the policy of Murdo Fraser, whom she beat, or of Lord Forsyth, whom she phones up?
The First Minister might be aware that Peri-dent, a company that manufactures oral care products, which is located at Tweedbank, in my constituency, closed its doors to manufacturing on Friday, transferring production to Malaysia—as usual because of cheaper production costs. There was a loss of 130 jobs.
The intention to relocate was made public in June last year. What has been done since then in preparation for the redundancies that I regret to say have now become a fact?
I share Christine Grahame’s concern about developments in respect of Peri-dent and their impact on the employees who are affected and their families and on the Borders.
I can tell Christine Grahame what we have been doing and I confirm that we will continue to do everything possible to support those employees. The local partnership action for continuing employment scheme has been involved in providing support to affected employees since Peri-dent announced in June last year its intention to move operations to Malaysia. PACE support has been provided at various times during the past months and has included two special events for employees, which were held on 22 November and, more recently, on 31 January. I assure Christine Grahame that the local team will continue to provide support to employees, to minimise the time that individuals are affected by redundancy and are out of work.
The First Minister will be aware of NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s extraordinary mishandling of a freedom of information request and of Kevin Dunion’s condemnatory report on the poor management and governance that might have put patient safety at risk.
I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy’s announcement yesterday of an inquiry by Healthcare Improvement Scotland into the board’s practices and procedures. Can the First Minister assure me that the lessons that should have been learned after more than 20 deaths and 50 critical incidents, and after the creation of action plans, which might or might not have been implemented, will be learned, and that patient safety in my constituency will not be put at further risk by the intransigence and ineptitude of senior managers at NHS Ayrshire and Arran?
I should perhaps declare an interest. Rab Wilson, who made the freedom of information request, is a personal friend—and, incidentally, a very estimable character indeed. He was involved in the critical incident in September 2006.
I welcome the way in which John Scott introduced the subject and I support his welcome for the health secretary’s actions. The straight answer to his question is yes. The detailed answer is that the health secretary has instructed NHS Ayrshire and Arran urgently to review its FOI policy and report back to her within the next week, to ensure that it is fully compliant with the legislation. She has also asked Healthcare Improvement Scotland to carry out an urgent audit of relevant clinical governance procedures in NHS Ayrshire and Arran and to consider national lessons that can be learned.
I hope that that satisfies the member that the action that the health secretary is taking is appropriate to what are serious circumstances.
Cabinet (Meeting)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00484)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
On the subject of NHS Ayrshire and Arran, and the response to John Scott’s question, I am now rather confused about the issue. It is clear that the First Minister knew about that emerging circumstance, but yesterday the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy instructed an immediate report into the problems in NHS Ayrshire and Arran. Why has it taken three months since the PricewaterhouseCoopers report was published in November for the health secretary to act?
The actions that the health secretary has taken are extremely timeous. The double action of looking not only at the freedom of information policy but at the heart of what the FOI request was about is very important, hence the request for Healthcare Improvement Scotland to carry out that urgent audit.
I think that most fair-minded people would say that the twin action of not only getting NHS Ayrshire and Arran to abide by its statutory FOI responsibilities, but getting to the heart of the failures in the systems that are perhaps evident and getting the audit done, is a pretty comprehensive and proper response to those serious circumstances.
Why has it taken three months for us to find out about that serious problem? Earlier this month, I asked the First Minister about extending freedom of information laws, and he refused. This case shows the value of freedom of information.
Kevin Dunion was very critical in his last report. He said that the case was perhaps
“the most serious catalogue of failings”
that he had ever dealt with.
Yesterday, the First Minister’s personal friend did a great service. He is a persistent individual who stood up. When can we expect to see in the Parliament a comprehensive report on freedom of information that covers all health boards in Scotland, not just NHS Ayrshire and Arran? Will patients throughout Scotland have to rely on Rab Wilson, or will the Scottish Government do its job?
The report came out this week, and the health secretary has taken the appropriate serious response.
Health boards are covered by freedom of information. It is not about the issue—which Willie Rennie recently pursued—of extending FOI, but about enforcing FOI on a body that is already covered by freedom of information legislation. Although that aspect is important and is being pursued by the health secretary, I am sure that Willie Rennie will agree—and the constituency member will certainly agree—that addressing the underlying issue of health and safety and the procedures that are in place is the key to improvement as well.
The twin action of ensuring that FOI legislation is enforced on a body that is covered by it and looking at the underlying issue of the safety procedures is an appropriate action for the health secretary to take.
Scotland to Heathrow Routes (Competition)
4. To ask the First Minister, given the economic impact, what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that competition remains on routes from Scotland to Heathrow airport. (S4F-00477)
Together with our agencies, the Scottish Government is committed to working with airlines and the operators of Scotland’s airports to improve our international connectivity. The primary focus is on business, inward investment and inbound tourism.
There is no shortage of interest from airlines wanting to develop connectivity at present. That is exemplified by Emirates offering a double-daily service from Glasgow to Dubai from this coming June, Jet2’s continued expansion at Glasgow and the growth of Lufthansa and Azerbaijan in Aberdeen. In addition, we expect the current owner—and, it is hoped, the future owner—of Edinburgh airport to compete strongly to attract new airlines that meet the demand and potential demand.
I am sure that the First Minister shares my disappointment that earlier this week Ryanair announced its decision to cut back its services from Edinburgh.
What progress is being made in urging the United Kingdom Government to devolve the power of air passenger duty so that Scottish airports—and the important links between Aberdeen and London—can remain competitive?
I regret Ryanair’s decision, but it provides an example of the difficulties for both the airline and the airport. As Edinburgh airport pointed out, it would have been impossible to grant some exemption or special deal to Ryanair from air passenger duty without doing that for every other carrier in Edinburgh airport.
A key solution should therefore surely be to replicate in Scotland what the United Kingdom Government is currently offering to Northern Ireland, which is the devolution of air passenger duty so that we can ensure that our airports are competitive in order to expand Scotland’s international connectivity. After all, if I remember correctly, that was a recommendation of the Calman commission, which has somehow disappeared from the bill that is going through the Houses of Parliament in Westminster.
In case anybody in the chamber thinks that that proposal does not have support outside the chamber, I will quote a letter from Derek Provan, Aberdeen airport’s managing director. He says:
“APD remains a significant barrier to growth ... I therefore welcome the continuing efforts of the Scottish Government to devolve APD to Scotland so that decisions affecting the future of our industry can be made here in Scotland—in the best interests of Scotland’s airports.”
So say all of us.
Construction Sector
5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to improve confidence in the construction sector. (S4F-00473)
In the face of a United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal Government cut to our capital budget of more than 30 per cent—a cut that was first put in place by Alistair Darling, whose cuts were to be deeper and tougher than those of Margaret Thatcher, according to that former chancellor—the Scottish Government is maximising capital spending to support infrastructure investment and jobs. We are at the most difficult time switching £750 million from resource to capital over the spending review period and taking forward a new programme of non-profit-distributing investment that is worth £2.5 billion. As a result, capital spending will grow over the spending review period. Of course, with capital borrowing powers, we could do a great deal more.
That was the same old record. It is clear that, unlike the Scottish construction sector, the First Minister’s confidence level is not at -28. Is he complacent about the fact that two thirds of the industry expect public sector construction activity to reduce in the next year and that only one tenth expect an increase? Is he complacent about the fact that 30,000 jobs have been lost in the sector in the past year? Is he complacent about the fact that the annual rate of new house building in Scotland is at its lowest level since records began? Does he not think that it is time to consider whether reducing the affordable housing supply budget by 30 per cent in the current year is the correct policy when the construction sector is so depressed, or does he believe that the Chinese will build Scotland’s houses, as well as our bridges?
Is Elaine Murray totally unaware of what has happened to the public sector capital budget across these islands? Normally, when we talk about the squeeze on the revenue budget in Scotland, Labour can say that that has gone too far, too fast and that it would go at a slower pace. Of course, in relation to the dramatic cut of 30 per cent in the capital budget, the plans that the Labour Party left would have gone even faster.
There is nothing in the slightest complacent about this Government’s approach to capital spending. It is high time that Labour accepted responsibility for laying plans that saw the greatest reduction in public capital investment in the past generation.
Incidentally, every time we challenge Treasury ministers on the subject, their first answer is that they have improved the position that Alistair Darling left them. If I put his phone number in the Scottish Parliament information centre, maybe Elaine Murray can give him a ring and ask him what on earth he was playing at in relation to the construction sector.
As for what the Government has done, if Elaine Murray casts her mind back two years to when the Government was able to accelerate capital investment and if she looks at the figures for that year, she will find that the construction sector in Scotland outperformed that in the rest of the UK. That proves that public capital investment can have a substantive effect on the economy. Is it therefore too much to ask Elaine Murray to respond to the challenge of agreement that Johann Lamont ducked, which is to join in the chamber in submitting to the Tory-Liberal regime the list of capital projects on which spending could be made in the economy now to benefit Scotland, the Scottish construction sector and Scottish workers?
Rangers Football Club (Administration)
6. I should declare an interest as a debenture holder at Rangers.
To ask the First Minister what impact Rangers Football Club going into administration will have on the economy. (S4F-00478)
I think that some people would have recognised Murdo Fraser’s tie as a declaration of interest as well.
This is a very serious issue and, now that Rangers are in administration, it is clearly a hugely difficult time—especially for the 331 employees at the club. Duff & Phelps, the administrators, have stated that they hope that the club can emerge from administration as soon as possible, in which case the economic impact will be lessened. I very much hope that a way forward can be found that allows Rangers to meet its obligations to the taxpayer, to continue in business and to save jobs. However, because of the revelations of the past few days, it should be said that the task facing the administrators is very difficult indeed.
I thank the First Minister for his helpful response. I am sure that he would agree that a person would not need to be a supporter of the club to appreciate that there would be a serious impact—on Scottish football and the Scottish economy—if the financial situation at Rangers were to deteriorate further.
After all the media revelations of the past few days about the financial history of Mr Craig Whyte’s dealings with Rangers, would the First Minister encourage the Scottish Football Association to review urgently its rules on who are fit and proper persons to hold controlling interests in our football clubs?
As I said in my first answer to Murdo Fraser, the situation for the club is very serious. The series of revelations over the past few days has been very concerning indeed. We should therefore all support the Scottish Football Association’s inquiry into the potential breach of a number of articles of association under its current rules. That is an independent inquiry, as Murdo Fraser will know, and it deserves support and encouragement from all of us—regardless of how difficult some of the facts that may emerge may be.
As Murdo Fraser will know, the Scottish Government cannot offer financial support to any football club. However, members in the chamber will be aware that the Government has given unprecedented support to Scottish football. That support has largely been channelled through the SFA, and is illustrated by the £25 million that we have pledged to a national football academy, and by the Scottish Government’s £1 million sponsorship of this year’s Scottish communities league cup. The Minister for Commonwealth Games and Sport has been in contact with the administrators to iterate the importance of Rangers to Scottish football. Furthermore, as would happen for any other company, the partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—action team is at its disposal if and when redundancies are announced.
To ask the Scottish Government to secure in football a demand economy by encouraging football authorities and local councils to establish community-based sports co-operatives such as those developed in Germany, Holland and Spain, which have resulted in international football and sport success.
People’s eyes have understandably been caught by the immediate crisis that is engulfing Rangers, and by the revelations of the past few days. However, there is a lot in what Chic Brodie says about considering models of ownership and fan participation that have been successfully developed elsewhere. I ask people to consider the strong support—stronger than ever before—that the Scottish Government is providing for football as a whole, as our national game. I am especially proud of the £4 million that has been put into the youth action plan over the next four years. Such actions will guard the future of our game.
It is perfectly correct and proper for members to consider ownership models for football clubs—models that have been successful in other countries. Some clubs in Scotland are considering them seriously. In the long term, many fans may be attracted to them.
12:33
Meeting suspended.
14:15
On resuming—