Plenary, 23 Apr 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, April 23, 2009

Official Report 710KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1623)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Today is 23 April, St George's day, so I think it appropriate to congratulate the people of England on their national day.

The whole country wants to see all politicians, all parties and all sectors working together to help hard-working families through the global economic downturn. Yesterday's United Kingdom budget included £400 million for Scots seeking work, pensioners paying their fuel bills, and families bringing up children. It included new support for Scotland's oil and gas industry and for our renewable energy industry. It also showed that the Scottish budget will, in the teeth of a recession, grow by £2.2 billion over the next two years. Can the First Minister confirm that?

I am afraid that Iain Gray will have to come to terms with reality. If yesterday was a day of reckoning for Labour at Westminster, today is the day of reckoning for Labour in the Scottish Parliament.

Since November, Iain Gray has been saying of the cuts that are planned for next year that the amount might be less than £500 million. He has been appealing to his financial guru Andy Kerr for advice, who also says that it could not possibly be worked out. This morning on the radio, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it could still not be worked out. Well, we can work it out. The total cut by Labour on Scotland for next year is £496,682,000. That is the reality of what Labour in Westminster is forcing on the Scottish people.

Does Iain Gray understand that that level of reduction in funding for vital services in Scotland is not only bad for the economy and bad for public services, but threatens 9,000 jobs in Scotland?

Last week, the First Minister was caught out by the old trick question: what do you get if you divide by zero? The correct answer is that the question is meaningless—and so is his budget arithmetic.

Since November, I have been saying that the First Minister's budget would in the next year increase, and that in the year after that it would increase. So—let us do a bit of reckoning, and let us keep it simple. The First Minister's budget is £33.3 billion in 2008-09, £34.8 billion in 2009-10, and £35.5 billion in 2010-11. Is his budget going up, or is it going down?

Iain Gray will find the answer on page 241 of the red book that is published with the budget. This year, total managed expenditure for the Scottish budget is £29.1 billion. That is revenue and capital. Next year, it will be £29.3 billion. In real terms, that will be the first cut in the Scottish budget since the Tory years. In real terms, next year's figure will be £28.8 billion.

Now, I know that Iain Gray was a maths teacher, and I have to say that the BBC made one of its few apologies to me as far as the maths question was concerned. I know that he has been out of teaching for some time, but even Iain Gray must recognise that 28.8 is less than 29.1. Whatever way it is divided, that is the first real-terms cut in Scottish expenditure since the Tory years—something, of course, that the Labour Party said it would never do.

People in Scotland must find extraordinary the contrast in the rhetoric of the chancellor and the Prime Minister, who at Westminster berate the Tory party on cutting public services, when that is exactly what they propose to do next year in Scotland.

The First Minister can play around with his annually managed expenditure, his total managed expenditure and his departmental expenditure limit until he gets the figure he wants. However, any honest appraisal of the figures shows that his budget is still going up year on year, increasing by more than £2 billion in two years. The real question is this: what choices will the First Minister make with that budget? Labour at Westminster has promised to safeguard front-line services and to maintain budget increases of 5 per cent for local health services and 4 per cent for schools. Will the First Minister make the same promise for Scotland?

I will tell Iain Gray the choices that we would make if we were in government at Westminster. We would not choose to spend £25 billion on Trident nuclear missiles. Labour at Westminster has also chosen to spend £5 billion on a national database for identity cards that will do nobody any good. That is an extraordinary position. Those are the real political choices. Hands up who in the Labour Party wants to spend £100 billion on Trident while cutting public expenditure in Scotland. Lord George Foulkes is the only Labour member to put his hand up.

Iain Gray will have to come to terms with the fact that this is not playing around with financial aggregates. What Labour proposes is a cut of 9,000 jobs in Scotland—real jobs and real people are at risk of redundancy because of Labour.

Were we to cancel Trident, we would cut 11,000 jobs in the west of Scotland. Is that really the First Minister's brilliant idea to save the Scottish economy? We know the choices that the First Minister makes because he has been making them for two years. There have been cuts in teacher numbers—his cuts—and cuts in school building programmes, which are his cuts. Twenty thousand construction jobs have gone already and there have been cuts in housing completions—his cuts. There have been cuts in apprenticeship programmes—his cuts—and pensioners have been cut out of the central heating programme by means testing. Those are his cuts. Those cuts have nothing to do with next year's budget, the year after's budget or the budgets in 2013 and 2014. They have got nothing to do with Westminster; the person who is responsible for them is right here. The First Minister's budget is going to grow by £2.2 billion. When will he grow up, take responsibility and get on with the job?

We have already demonstrated that the cuts that Labour has refused to acknowledge since November will come in the Scottish budget next year—the first cuts since the Tory years.

I am interested in Iain Gray's inability to understand the difference between reinvesting in public services and top-slicing from the Scottish budget. I was also interested in Andy Kerr's analysis on "Newsnight Scotland" last night, in which he attacked the Scottish National Party. He said:

"They've, you know, reduced expenditure in Scotland by £1.6 billion worth of cuts. They've spent to the hilt."

In one breath, Andy Kerr said that we have been both cutting and spending "to the hilt."

The difference is that the efficiency savings that are being made in Scotland are going back into local government and the health service, whereas the Darling-Gray cuts will be top-sliced from the Scottish budget and will cost 9,000 jobs in Scotland. It is not only the SNP that is arguing that: the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities share our concerns. Every social partnership in Scotland knows the difference between investment by the SNP and cuts in public spending by the Labour Party.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1624)

I may well bump into the Secretary of State for Scotland on Monday, when I will explain the damage to Scotland and the Scottish economy that will result from the Labour Party's budget.

Labour's recession has landed the country in an appalling mess. No one is blaming the First Minister for the terrible state of the country's finances, but we are where we are. The Scottish budget is going to be squeezed by around £500 million, based on Labour's wildly optimistic estimates. Scotland needs a First Minister who does not just bawl and shout at Westminster but who confronts reality. What will the First Minister do to deal with Labour's £500 million budget squeeze?

The first thing every member of this Parliament should do is recognise that the Scottish economy will be driven into ruin and redundancy if we continue to be at the mercy of decisions that are made by London chancellors.

In Scotland, we have made real efficiency savings in the Scottish budget, which have been reinvested in our public spending programmes. That is the right policy in economic and political terms. However, there is a world of difference between efficiency savings that are reinvested in public services and top-sliced cuts from Westminster.

Annabel Goldie is correct: the chancellor in Westminster has managed to make an error of £60,000 million in the course of four months in estimating public borrowing. I point out that Mr Swinney, as the minister who is responsible for finance in Scotland, makes no error whatsoever, puts into the Scottish economy exactly what he has to spend, and has not borrowed a penny more than the budget allocation.

There he goes again. I will draw the First Minister back from the land of fantasy to the real world of Scotland. He might choose to be long on bluster and short on detail, but in these testing times Scotland needs a First Minister with the courage to make difficult decisions. I cannot believe that this First Minister has not given thought to this, considered the options, worked out a plan and faced up to the unpalatable reality, so I will ask my question again. What are the options? How, exactly, is he going to deal with Labour's budget squeeze?

We will do it with the efficiency and competence with which we have approached the budget process in Scotland, as opposed to the inefficiency and total incompetence that we have seen from Westminster.

Annabel Goldie and everyone else in this chamber should recognise that we have, since November, been warning of the implications to public services of a £500 million cut. She should equally understand that the political process requires people to put forward different points of view. Unfortunately, the only difference that I can see between the Tories at Westminster and Labour at Westminster is that the Tories want to introduce the cuts this year instead of next year. For the life of me, I cannot understand how introducing the cuts one year early is going to help Scotland out of recession.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1625)

The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland

After yesterday's budget, politics and government are, more than ever, about choices. Everyone faces 10 years of pain because of Labour, so Governments should account for the choices that they make.

The Scottish National Party queued up with Labour at Westminster to vote for the short-term VAT cut. That has not worked. Unemployment is soaring. Our Government could have used the same money to build for the long term, with investment in 95,000 green jobs and public transport. Does the First Minister regret making that short-term choice back in December?

Tavish Scott might remember that, back in December, I published information from the Scottish Government input-output model that showed precisely that we could have got twice as many jobs in Scotland through a capital investment programme as would be delivered through the VAT policy. What is more, as opposed to there being a cut in VAT, we would have been left with hospitals, schools and roads. There was a need for a fiscal stimulus, but there was also a need for it to be the right fiscal stimulus.

If Tavish Scott casts his mind back to last December, he might recall that, at that point, he was arguing for a cut in Scottish public spending not of £500 million, but of £700 million. The reason why he abandoned that during the budget process was that, in the months leading up to that point, he had not managed to identify anywhere that the cuts could be made.

That still begs the question why Alex Salmond voted for the VAT cut.

It is business as usual with the choices that the Scottish National Party Government makes. Money is to be spent on free school meals for rich kids, on reintroducing beavers to Argyll and on the referendum campaign, but which can never be cut, no matter how bad Government finances get or how high our taxes have to go.

Let us consider the construction industry. The SNP has announced and re-announced its capital spending. Yesterday's growth figures show that the Scottish construction industry is down by 4.7 per cent—the worst hit of any sector in the economy. Even under disastrous Labour in London, it is only 1.1 per cent. Why is it worse here than in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will the First Minister tell us whether that is anything to do with the choices that his Government has made?

I have the gross value added figures for construction in front of me. Tavish Scott is absolutely right: 4.7 per cent is a serious decline in the construction industry, indicating the depth of the recession that is confronting the UK.

That is the Scottish figure.

Yes, that is the Scottish figure—and the UK figure is 5 per cent.

No, it is not.

Yes, it is. The quarterly figure is 5 per cent. I will go through the other quarterly figures. In quarter 2, there was an increase of 1.4 per cent in Scotland and a decrease of 0.5 per cent in the UK and in quarter 3, the figure was 0.5 per cent in Scotland and 1 per cent in the UK. If Tavish Scott wants to bandy figures, he should bring the figures along with him so that he can get them right.

There is a £3.5 billion investment programme in Scottish public capital expenditure, which is sustaining 50,000 jobs in Scotland. I do not know how much of that Tavish Scott thought he could cut in his attempt to reduce public spending by £700 million, but members can be sure that if he had managed to persuade the rest of the chamber, there would be fewer jobs in construction, and elsewhere in the economy in Scotland than at present.

Mr Salmond is right: the figures in the tables for Scotland are 4.7 per cent down and for the UK they are 1.1 per cent down. It is as simple as that. Those are the published figures. Would he like to explain or is it, as usual, someone else's fault?

As I remember things, every time Tavish Scott accuses me of misleading the chamber he ends up making an apology, of a sort. The figure is 4.7 per cent for Scotland and I am afraid that it is 5 per cent for the UK. It is the quarterly gross value added figure in the construction index.

What is important is that we put into the Scottish economy the capital spending that is required to sustain jobs through the recession—the 20,000 jobs that result from the Scottish Government programme over the past year. In contrast, the United Kingdom chancellor managed to cut or threaten 9,000 jobs in a single day. That is why people in Scotland will prefer the investment programme of the SNP to the cuts programme of the Labour Party.

I will take a constituency question from Michael Matheson.

The First Minister is aware that more than 500 jobs are at risk because of T-Mobile's decision to move work from a Scottish company to the Philippines. The decision impacts not only on Telecom Service Centres Ltd workers in my constituency, but on workers in Greenock.

A letter from T-Mobile states that it is

"working closely with TSC to minimise and mitigate the losses".

However, my constituents tell me that there is no evidence whatever of that.

The workforce are rightly angry that they have been dumped for a cheaper overseas option after years of dedication. They are highly skilled professionals offering an industry-recognised and proven high-quality service.

Will the First Minister assure me that he will use the full resources of the Scottish Government, first to try to dissuade T-Mobile from taking those jobs overseas or, if that fails, at least to ensure that T-Mobile lives up to its promise to minimise and mitigate the job losses?

I share the disappointment of the constituency member and all members in the chamber in hearing that TSC is faced with making those redundancies. It is clear that that is not a reflection on the highly-skilled and valued workforce.

Ministers have been closely involved in the issue. We welcome the assurance from TSC that it would not off-shore any of the jobs. Mr Mather is writing to the parent company, T-Mobile, to argue the case to retain that business in Scotland.

The Government is committed to assisting all companies in the current climate to safeguard existing jobs and look at opportunities for expansion.

First Minister, I was delighted to hear you say that the Government would get behind this company, but could you start by ensuring that your minister, Jim Mather—

Through the chair please, Mr McNeil.

Sorry. Could you make sure—[Laughter.] Could you make sure, First Minister—

"Could he make sure," Mr McNeil.

Could he make sure—[Applause.] Thank you for that, Presiding Officer; I was not expecting to be called.

Could the First Minister ensure that his minister Jim Mather takes action for the TSC workers in Greenock and Falkirk? Mr Mather has known about the situation for a number of weeks—indeed, months—and I have been very disappointed by his complacent response. This important issue concerns not only TSC workers but the whole of Scotland's call centre sector, so I hope that action will be taken.

Both Mr Mather and Mr Swinney are involved in this issue. The situation is serious and should be treated as such.

However, I point out to Duncan McNeil that not so long ago this Government's direct and rapid intervention saved 900 jobs at a call centre in Cumbernauld. He can be absolutely certain that in confronting these serious challenges Scottish ministers will do their utmost to minimise the recession's damage to the Scottish economy.

---

Drug and Alcohol Services

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government has taken in light of the Audit Scotland report, "Drug and alcohol services in Scotland". (S3F-1632)

I am pleased that on Monday we were able to hold an alcohol and drugs delivery summit—fulfilling a commitment that I gave last month to Annabel Goldie and indeed this Parliament—and that Annabel Goldie, Richard Simpson and Ian McKee were able to attend the event. I know that they found it valuable.

At the summit, we and our social partners in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities launched a new framework for action on alcohol and drugs, which directly addresses the problems that the Auditor General for Scotland recently highlighted. Indeed, I was pleased to hear that the Auditor General, who also attended the summit, welcomed the new framework.

We have already ensured that the right strategies and the right investment are in place. Having the right delivery framework now in place gives us the best possible chance of success in tackling together the significant problems that we face.

Everyone in Parliament knows that alcohol abuse is a major problem in Scotland, and is aware of its £2.5 billion cost implications for the national health service. Does the First Minister agree with former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish, who has said that the Scottish Government must press ahead with its proposals for minimum alcohol pricing?

Yes, I do. The former First Minister's analysis of the situation and support for the Scottish Government's position were comprehensive. His is a powerful voice and we are delighted to have his support.

As far as the overall reach of our campaign and strategy for tackling alcohol and drugs abuse in Scotland is concerned, we recognise that not everyone will agree with every one of our proposals. However, we hope and believe that we will find areas of agreement in key parts of the programme. In that respect, I welcome the fact that Annabel Goldie described as a "milestone" Monday's announcement of the delivery mechanisms to bring the strategy into practice as we deal with these social problems.

I join the First Minister in welcoming Monday's summit, which was indeed very useful. However, does he agree that there should, given the significant waiting times that are faced by too many addicts seeking treatment, and the stress of such situations on them, their families and—in some cases—their children, be a commitment to achieving in Scotland a similar waiting time for drug misusers to that in England, which is now less than four weeks?

We are catching up with some areas south of the border, where the scale of the problem was recognised quicker than it was in Scotland.

I remind Richard Simpson that we are investing £94 million in drugs services over three years, which is an increase of 13 per cent, and that we have increased hugely the budget for tackling the blight of alcohol. I welcome not only his attendance at Monday's forum but his constructive support in a number of areas in the battle that we must, as a Parliament and as a society, fight together.

---

Ambulance Response Times

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that the inclusion of voluntary first responders in the statistics provides the public with an accurate representation of ambulance response times. (S3F-1641)

First, I take this opportunity to thank all the people throughout Scotland who participate in volunteer first responder schemes, which are fantastic schemes. They account for a very small proportion—only 0.5 per cent—of total responses and are always backed up by ambulances. Those volunteers play a valuable role as part of the overall Ambulance Service response and have done so since the scheme was introduced in 2002.

The contribution of first responders should be included in the statistics as they form part of the overall resource that is managed and monitored by the Scottish Ambulance Service. Since the service started recording performance across Scotland against its category A target, first responders have always been included.

I thank the First Minister for that answer, but I am not sure that the public will be entirely reassured, given that some concerns have been expressed, from the Scottish Ambulance Service unions in particular, that first responders have been used at incidents for which they have not been trained properly.

Is the First Minister aware of concerns that the current time-only target does not give a true picture of effectiveness? For example, arrival two minutes after the target response time, where there is a good outcome for the patient, is not deemed to be a success. Will the First Minister ask his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing whether the time is right to review the targets for the ambulance response times in order to have a more sophisticated measurement?

The eight-minute target for category A incidents is widely recognised internationally as being absolutely crucial. The figures for the Scottish Ambulance Service are improving all the time. For the first time, the 75 per cent target has been met—I think, in March this year. For the first time since that valuable target was introduced, the Scottish Ambulance Service, through its efforts and the work that it does, is meeting the target of getting to 75 per cent of life-threatening emergency situations in category A within eight minutes. I point out to Cathy Jamieson that not only have we met the target for the first time, but the target would have been met regardless of whether the first responders were included in the figures. In looking at this issue, instead of doing anything other than welcome and support those who work in the public services—those working full-time in the Scottish Ambulance Service and the volunteers who are turning in these remarkable statistics for the first time—cannot we as a Parliament get behind them and say collectively to our Ambulance Service, "Well done and keep on going"?

Does the First Minister agree that, notwithstanding the fact that the Government and the Scottish Ambulance Service have met, and indeed exceeded, their targets, even when first responders are removed from the figures—we have done that in any event—the rather spurious attack that has been launched by Labour denigrates the reputation of first responders, who play a crucial and additional role in urgent circumstances, particularly in rural areas?

It is important to say that even if the first responders had been excluded from the target, the Scottish Ambulance Service would in March have reached 76.6 per cent of category A incidents within eight minutes, thereby achieving the target for the first time.

I am totally bemused by the Labour Party's attitude. Previously, Richard Simpson, for example, has been extremely supportive of the 75 per cent target as being entirely realistic. In welcoming the valuable work of first responders and recognising the wonderful performance of our Scottish Ambulance Service in meeting the demanding target for the first time, cannot we acknowledge that those who are charged with saving lives in Scotland are doing a first-class job?

---

National Trust for Scotland

To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the management, staff and unions of the National Trust for Scotland on its future. (S3F-1626)

We are disappointed at the potential implications of the National Trust for Scotland's announcement about its properties at risk and appreciate the impact that that is having on the affected staff and their families.

The Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution met the chair and chief executive of the National Trust for Scotland on 2 April 2009. Scottish Government officials have also met representatives of the trust several times since it announced in March plans for closures or changes to the operating arrangements at several of its properties.

What are the First Minister's views on the campaign by in trust for Scotland to force an extraordinary general meeting of the National Trust for Scotland? Will he do everything in his power to protect the future of National Trust for Scotland properties and jobs, particularly in the Ayrshire area, such as the Robert Burns birthplace museum and Culzean castle, which are vital attractions in the year of homecoming?

As John Scott well knows, we have confirmed grant funding of £5.5 million to the Burns birthplace museum project. When the minister met the National Trust for Scotland, he was assured that that project is on time and on budget.

Ministers are anxious to help in any way they can. The National Trust for Scotland is a private charity that must be allowed to organise its affairs without Government interference, but if Government support in several areas can be of even further help to the National Trust than is the extensive help that it is receiving for its new projects, we are of course willing to listen.

The First Minister knows that two properties that are under threat are in my constituency—the Hill of Tarvit mansion house and Kellie castle, which are important in their own right and as tourist attractions. Local people want the opportunity to develop new business models for those properties. Will the Scottish Government work with the National Trust to ensure that those properties stay open this year, to provide sufficient time for new business models to be developed?

There are also two properties under threat in my constituency. Iain Smith will recognise that, given that 11 of the 130 properties that the National Trust for Scotland controls are threatened with change to their operations or closure, many of us have much understandable constituency concern.

It is clear that the Government cannot and should not seek to direct the affairs of an independent charitable association. However, it is equally clear that the reason for having meetings with the National Trust for Scotland is to consider whether the Government can offer realistic assistance over and above the substantial assistance that is being offered with the exciting new projects that the National Trust plans.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—