Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02894)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
It is the end of term, when we sometimes reach for a little levity—and I am famous for levity. I was tempted to ask the First Minister what she is doing to save the macaroni pie, but I would never get four bites out of that. There are also the oil and gas reports, which were slipped out half an hour ago on the last day of term, but there is nothing funny about the figures contained in them.
It is also the end of the school term, and all over Scotland careful childcare arrangements made by families are coming to a crashing halt. I think that in a modern, 21st century country such as Scotland, parents should expect affordable, accessible, high-quality childcare all year round for children of all ages. Will the First Minister explain why we do not have that?
That is a clutch of issues to be getting on with. First, let me deal with the important matter of the macaroni pie, as that cannot be left on the sidelines today. I confess that I am not a lover of the macaroni pie, but my father is, and last night he gave me a stern talking to on the telephone and told me that he expected me to join the campaign to save the macaroni pie. I have always been an obedient and loyal daughter, and this occasion is no different.
The oil and gas bulletin was actually published two hours ago—perhaps Iain Gray is a slow reader; I do not know, but he has certainly not done much for his reputation for levity today.
Iain Gray raised a serious and important issue, and I warmly welcome the report that has been published today by the commission for childcare reform. The Government will study that report carefully, and if it contains ideas or suggestions that we think are worth taking forward, we will certainly do so. As Iain Gray is aware, the Government has already increased by almost half the hours of free early learning and childcare that are available for three and four-year-olds, and we have plans in the next session of Parliament to double that provision again, from 16 to 30 hours a week. I accept that there are issues of flexibility and wraparound care, and that is why our recent legislation put the onus on local authorities to consult parents about those issues. We will continue to work hard to improve the provision of childcare. Why will we do that? Because it is right for children and for parents who want to work.
Finally, the Government’s commitment to increase childcare to 30 hours a week over the next session of Parliament, if we are re-elected, is way in excess of what both Labour and the Tories promised at the United Kingdom election. We will continue to lead not just by example but by practice and by getting on with the job.
When it comes to levity I know that I am a stand-in, but we should probably both admit that neither of us are stand-ups; that is for sure.
The trouble with free nursery hours is that thousands of parents cannot access their childcare entitlement. The First Minister knows that; she has met the fair funding for our kids campaign twice, but she has done nothing to fix the problem.
There is a bigger problem. The commission for childcare reform, which reports today, says that there has been a
“Focus on early learning for pre-school children at the expense of broader childcare provision”.
Indeed, the head of the Childcare Alliance says:
“In Scotland in 2015 far too many families are finding that, instead of working for them, the childcare settlement is making their lives more difficult and less secure.”
The First Minister may welcome the commission’s report but, in many ways, it is damning of her childcare policy. Is she listening? More important, will she act?
I suggest to Iain Gray, just by way of an introductory comment to my answer, that, before he criticises this Government’s commitment to childcare provision, he should reflect on the fact that what we are providing today is double what we inherited from the last Labour Administration. I do not suggest that there is not work to do, and we are committed to doing it, but it is far in advance of anything that the last Labour Government managed to introduce. In the spirit of honesty and self-reflection, which shone through that BBC documentary “The Fall of Labour” the other night, its members should reflect on their own record.
I know that the matter raised is an issue for parents. I have spoken to parents in my constituency, and I have spoken to the fair funding for our kids group. I suggest to Iain Gray that he familiarise himself with the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which has done two things in particular that are relevant to this question: it has placed on local authorities the obligation to consult parents about flexibility, and also the obligation to consult parents on early learning and childcare beyond the mandatory hours and on out-of-school care, so that that can be better integrated with mandatory early learning and childcare.
We will continue to take forward this important programme of work. Labour members might want to support us, instead of throwing brickbats from the sidelines, as has become their wont.
I understand that the Scottish Government has asked local government to consult parents, but the childcare commission has spent 15 months consulting parents and providers, and parents are not going to say anything different.
Let me try to explain. After 16 years, the Parliament is full of grandparents, including you, Presiding Officer, and me. In Scotland, more grandparents have to fill childcare gaps for free than anywhere else in the UK. Today is the very day when grannies and grandpas are mobilised to fill the school holiday hole in childcare provision right across the country—plus friends, neighbours, juggling family holidays, flexible hours for those who are allowed them and holiday clubs for those who can afford them. No amount of free pre-school hours helps with that. The commission’s report says that that focus is squeezing other wraparound care out.
The only thing that will help is to have modern, flexible, all-year-round, all-age, affordable childcare, so will the First Minister change her childcare focus and deliver what parents need, not what her Government has decided they should get?
In everything that I have said I have recognised the challenges that parents face, and that is why we are working to improve the provision of childcare. We are doing so by extending the number of hours—during term time, I accept—while also considering how we integrate that provision better with more wraparound care. The obligation that is now on local authorities to look at flexibility and integration is resulting in authorities starting to consider different ways of providing childcare. Just a few weeks ago, I was talking to a local authority nursery headteacher who is actively considering how to extend provision longer into the holiday period. Those issues are actively being taken forward.
Iain Gray wants to make comparisons with the rest of the UK. I point out that—albeit that childcare is expensive, which we understand—Scotland has lower costs for almost all types of childcare than the rest of the UK. Costs are rising more slowly here. However, there is no doubt that childcare is expensive, and that is why we will get on with the job of improving it.
Labour should reflect on why, if it had all the answers, it did not implement some of those answers when it was in government. Secondly, why—[Interruption.]
We did.
Order. Mr Simpson.
Why, just a month or so ago, during the UK general election campaign, did Labour not propose any of those ideas that Iain Gray is now putting forward? I will leave Labour to moan on the sidelines. As First Minister of this Government, I can say that we will get on with the job of improving childcare for children and parents across the country.
The First Minister dismisses the costs of childcare in a sentence. [Interruption.]
Order.
The truth is that we have some of the highest childcare costs in the world. Childcare is not working for families. but it is failing low-income families in particular. For them, this is not an inconvenience; it is a year-round insurmountable barrier to getting into work and out of hardship. They know what they need: after-school clubs, holiday childcare and full-time nursery places that are available, accessible and affordable. They need to know that childcare will not cost them more than 10 per cent of their income—that is Scottish Labour’s commitment as well that in the childcare commission report—and that childcare will not disappear on 1 July once their child is five.
I know that the First Minister cannot deliver that by tomorrow, but she can commit to it today. After eight years of Scottish National Party Government, is that really too much for parents to ask?
I think that one of the problems for Iain Gray here is that he might not want to listen to the answers that I am giving, because they get in the way of his pre-prepared script for the questions, but I assume that people out there—[Interruption.]
Order.
—will be listening to the answers that I am giving. First, I did not dismiss concerns about the cost of childcare; I said explicitly that childcare is too expensive. I simply corrected a point that Iain Gray made about UK comparisons. Secondly, I have said that this issue is a work in progress for the Scottish Government. We are increasing the provision of free childcare so that it does not cost any percentage of a family’s budget and they get the same hours of childcare free of charge as primary school children spend in primary school. We are also working to deal with the issue of integration and wraparound care. This is a job that we are getting on with doing, because I know how much it matters to parents, to grandparents and, perhaps most important of all, to children across the country.
Yet again we have the divide in this chamber: the Opposition just raises the moans and the whinges and the problems; this Government gets on with finding the solutions and doing the hard work of fixing things.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02896)
I have no plans in the near future.
This week, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that one of every three of its members worries that they cannot recruit enough skilled staff to grow their business. That is one of their biggest concerns and now outweighs tax, utility costs and access to finance for them. We know that this Government has decimated Scotland’s colleges, which are the bedrocks of skills training. The excuse has always been that the Government would make up for the cuts to part-time places with an increase in full-time places. In the past five years, how many part-time places has the First Minister cut and how many full-time replacements have there been?
If Ruth Davidson is serious about ensuring that our small businesses—indeed, our businesses of any size—have access to the skilled labour that they need, she would be supporting the college reform programme because it is precisely about making sure that young people, or people of any age, going through the college system are coming out with the skills, training and qualifications that better equip them for the jobs market.
The issue of skills is important, and the Scottish Government—through Angela Constance, as the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning; Roseanna Cunningham, as the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training; and the Deputy First Minister, as Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy—works closely with businesses and business organisations to ensure that we can deal with skills shortages where they exist.
However, any issue of skills shortages arises from the fact that we have rising employment in Scotland and falling rates of economic inactivity. Yes, skills shortages are challenges that we must address, but they are challenges from a recovering economy. I will continue to make sure that this Government, through our education system, is equipping young people for the jobs that are out there for them. If Ruth Davidson was serious about this, she would get behind that.
It was not a hard question. I asked for only two numbers, but I am not surprised that those numbers are ones that the First Minister did not want to give. In the five years to 2013-14, the Government cut 150,000 part-time places and replaced them with just 9,000 full-time places. That is a ratio of 15:1. Part-time courses help carers, single mothers, those who are returning from maternity leave and part-time workers. [Interruption.]
Order.
However, it is worse than that. For the first time, we now know what those cuts mean for individual communities. Yesterday, MSPs were told that there has been a cut of more than 18,000 college places in Fife, a cut of nearly 20,000 across Aberdeenshire and a drop of nearly 16,000 here in Edinburgh. Most shamefully of all, in the First Minister’s own backyard, there are now more than 30,000 fewer college places for the young people of Glasgow than there were when the SNP Government came to office.
We already knew that the numbers had been cut, but we now know the communities that have been hit hardest by those cuts. We also know that our small businesses are increasingly worried about a skills gap opening up. The SNP’s approach to colleges is failing students and failing Scotland’s businesses.
I need a question, Ms Davidson.
What will the First Minister do to turn the situation round?
If everything was as disastrous as Ruth Davidson makes out, Scotland would not, right now, have the lowest level of youth unemployment that we have seen in six years and the highest level of female employment that we have ever seen. That is the reality of the reform.
I remind Ruth Davidson of some facts that she may find inconvenient. The Government promised that we would maintain 116,000 full-time college places. As I accepted a couple of weeks ago, when questioned by Kezia Dugdale, we did not quite deliver on that commitment—instead, we have delivered 119,636 full-time college places. The number of women who are studying on full-time courses has increased by 15 per cent, more recognised qualifications are being achieved and 14,000 more students are successfully completing full-time courses leading to recognised qualifications than was the case in 2009.
Here is the view of somebody whom we all respect—somebody whom the Opposition parties are usually keen to quote when his words suit their purposes. Sir Ian Wood says:
“Colleges have come on immensely ... They are re-energised and are re-inventing themselves as larger units with ... greater potential”.
He says that they are
“recognising their opportunity ... to enhance the focus on employability of the students.”
Where part-time courses are still appropriate, we support them. That is why we have invested an additional £6.6 million in 2014-15 for part-time places, which are often favoured by women. Ruth Davidson will not like that either.
We are getting on with the job of making sure that we have a young population that is equipped to take up the jobs that are being created in our economy. It is the kind of thing that the Tories used to support, but they seem to have completely lost their way.
Stewart Stevenson has a constituency question.
The First Minister will be aware of the loss by Young’s Seafood of probably the biggest fish-processing contract in the United Kingdom, which is affecting jobs in Fraserburgh and in Grimsby. Aberdeenshire Council has indicated that it will work to mitigate the effects of that, and the chief executive has indicated to me that he will give every support to Government initiatives. It would be very welcome if the First Minister could indicate that the Government will support every effort to mitigate the effects of job losses in Fraserburgh.
I share the member’s concern about recent developments in respect of Young’s Seafood and the potential impact on employees, their families and the surrounding areas. I can confirm that the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment have offered and will continue to offer immediate support to the company. Scottish Enterprise is also in contact with the company to support the business and to discuss what can be done to minimise any negative impact on jobs.
In the unfortunate event of job losses, we have already made the offer of support through our partnership action for continuing employment initiative, which helps in redundancy situations and assists those who are affected by redundancy. I reassure the member that the Government will do everything within our power to help the company through this difficult time.
The First Minister will be aware of the deportation of the City of Glasgow College student, Majid Ali, to Pakistan. His whereabouts are unknown and he has not been heard from since. Does the First Minister share my concerns over his safety? Will the Scottish Government endeavour to find out exactly what has happened to Majid Ali?
I certainly share the concern of the member and of Mr Ali’s friends about his safety since his removal from the United Kingdom. It is very worrying that no one has heard from him in the two weeks since he left the UK. On 10 June, the Minister for Europe and International Development wrote to the Home Secretary seeking urgent clarification of Mr Ali’s situation and assurances about his safety. To date, no reply has been received and I now intend to write to the Prime Minister.
Although asylum is a reserved matter, the Scottish Government is clear that all claims for asylum must be thoroughly and fairly assessed, and that people must be returned to their country of origin only if their safety can be guaranteed.
Police Scotland (Stop and Search)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the finding by the Scottish centre for crime and justice research that in 2014-15 Police Scotland’s use of stop and search remained “unduly high”. (S4F-02897)
First, it is important to set the report in context. It says that
“At the national level, the trends seem encouraging”
and notes that the overall number of recorded searches fell by 34 per cent in 2014-15.
Alison McInnes will be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has set up an independent advisory group, chaired by John Scott QC, to examine the use of stop and search in Scotland. The group, which has met twice already, will make its recommendations by August. The cabinet secretary looks forward to working constructively with members to take forward the group’s recommendations.
In addition, Police Scotland is implementing a detailed improvement plan on stop and search, which will result in better training, data recording and governance.
Search numbers might be down, but they are still far too high. People in Glasgow are five times more likely to be stopped and searched than people in London are. Searches fall disproportionately on young people. Last year, the number of searches on 16-year-olds in Glasgow was greater than the total number of 16-year-olds in that city.
I know that the First Minister wants to wait for the findings of her advisory group, but the independent review of the Fife pilot by an academic says that consensual stop and search should end now. Will she back that academic’s recommendation and call on Police Scotland today to end this discredited practice?
As the member will be aware, there is already a presumption against consensual stop and search, and there is no consensual stop and search for young people. It is important to wait for the outcome of the advisory group; otherwise, there would be little point in establishing it.
I pay tribute to Alison McInnes, as she has a consistent record on these issues, and I respect her views. I am sure that she will recognise the trends that the centre’s report sets out. In the first two full years of Police Scotland, the number of searches fell by almost 38 per cent, and by 34 per cent in the most recent year; the number of consensual searches fell by 40 per cent; and the number of searches on 16-year-olds fell by 39 per cent. Further, as I said, there is already an end to consensual stop and search for under-12s and a presumption against it for everyone else.
The right things have been done. There is a determination to learn the right lessons. It is important to allow the advisory group the opportunity to do its job, then all of us, collectively, can take forward its recommendations.
Is the First Minister aware of figures from Police Scotland, which were given to me last week, that reveal that there were 7,500 stop and searches—more than 20 every day—in East Renfrewshire last year? I ask the question because one young man was stopped several times in his car and once recently while out walking, all without foundation.
Does the First Minister believe that all of those 7,500 searches in the most law-abiding area in Scotland were intelligence led? Does she share my concern that the situation could damage relations between the police and our young people?
I believe—as I think that I have made clear—that the relationship between the police and our young people is vital. The approach to stop and search is one of the factors that ensure that that relationship is good.
I know from experience in my constituency that people want to see the police visibly tackling crime and disorder in their communities. There is always an important balance to be struck.
As I said to Alison McInnes, the trends on stop and search are clear, and they are all downward. The statistics that I read out to her are important, and they show significant drops in the use of stop and search. Further, as I said, there is now an end to consensual stop and search for under-12s and a presumption against stop and search for everyone else.
The presumption is that only when there are statutory grounds will stop and search happen. If the advisory group recommends further changes to policy, as I expect that it will, we will take those recommendations forward.
Welfare Reductions (Impact on Food Bank Use)
To ask the First Minister what analysis the Scottish Government will make of the impact on food bank usage as a result of Scotland’s share of the further £12 billion in welfare reductions announced by the United Kingdom Government. (S4F-02895)
We continue to be very concerned about the rising demand for food banks. The Scottish Government has invested nearly £300 million from 2013-14 to this year to mitigate the worst impacts of the UK Government’s welfare cuts. That includes £1 million specifically for our emergency food action plan to help combat food poverty in Scotland.
There is no doubt in my mind that the UK Government’s welfare cuts have led to the dramatic increase that we have seen in food bank use. We have yet to hear the details of where and on whom the Conservatives’ £12 billion welfare axe will fall in the future. However, we have seen from experience that Tory benefit cuts tend to fall on the most vulnerable and disproportionately on disabled people and on women. The Scottish Government will continue to do everything that it can to mitigate that impact.
Information that was published this morning highlights the high level of child poverty that there is now, even before the additional £12 billion of welfare cuts come from Westminster. Does the First Minister agree with me that the extra cuts will only push more children and their families into poverty, which the Conservative Government will be responsible for? Does she agree that the pressures that are placed on food banks and food share organisations will only increase, at a time when the level of emergency food aid that is provided by Trussell Trust food banks in Scotland is the second highest in the entire UK?
I agree with that. Figures that have been published this morning show that poverty in Scotland—particularly child poverty—remains far too high. We know that there has been an eightfold increase—I repeat: an eightfold increase—in emergency food aid given to families over a three-year period. That suggests that there is a real pressure on family incomes because of welfare cuts and benefit changes.
The Prime Minister seemed to indicate on Monday that tax credits would form a key element of the UK Government’s proposed £12 billion of further cuts to the welfare budget. Tax credits are a vital support for many low-income families, and particularly families with children. Cuts of that magnitude will have a significant impact on families and poverty levels in this country, and they will push more people into relying on services such as food banks. That, along with many other things, powerfully illustrates why the powers over social security should be in the hands of the Scottish Parliament and not in the hands of a Tory Government at Westminster.
Local Authorities (Budget Reductions)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the concerns expressed by trade unions and others regarding the budget reductions that local authorities are facing. (S4F-02902)
The outcome of the 2011 spending review and the budget review of 2013 confirmed that local government’s revenue funding and capital share would be maintained on a like-for-like basis, with extra money being made available for new duties. Despite the significant cuts that Westminster has imposed on this Parliament’s budget, the total share of the Scottish Government’s budget that is allocated to local government, excluding health spending, has risen on a like-for-like basis since we took office in 2007.
The impact of the 2015 United Kingdom spending review on the Scottish budget, as well as the financial settlement that the Scottish Government in turn reaches with local government, will determine future budgets.
Since the Government came to power, 50,000 people have lost their jobs in councils across Scotland. That is the equivalent of the entire engineering sector. The poorest communities are suffering the greatest loss of services. Libraries have closed, home care has been privatised, education services have been cut and the cost of burials is up.
If those job losses had occurred in the whisky or bioscience sectors, there would rightly be a national outcry. There would be calls for action and a task force set up in response. [Interruption.]
Let the member ask his question.
Why does the employment crisis in local government not merit a similar—or indeed any—response from the First Minister?
Not for the first time, Neil Findlay seems to live in a parallel universe. I cannot help thinking that, if only UK Labour had had the guts to stand up against Tory austerity, we might not have another Tory Government looking to impose more austerity. [Interruption.]
Order.
Instead, we have the pitiful sight—[Interruption.]
Order.
I know that Labour members do not like it. Instead, we have the pitiful sight of a UK Labour leadership contest being dominated by the question whether Labour is going to admit to spending too much during the good years.
We will continue to stand up against Tory austerity and to do everything that we can to protect our vital public services, such as the national health service and—[Interruption.]
Order.
While Scottish Labour still takes the view that it is better to allow our finances to be run by a Tory Government at Westminster than to be run by this Government here in Scotland, it will have absolutely zero credibility on these issues.
Taxis (Regulation and Licensing)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government’s approach to regulation and licensing of the taxi market is focused on what is in the best interests of consumers. (S4F-02900)
The principal reason for licensing taxis and private hire cars is to ensure the safety of passengers, which is why through the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill we are seeking to tighten up regulation and enforcement, as well as to bring data consistency to the taxi and private hire regimes. We have undertaken a thorough process of consultation and engagement in order to arrive at a balanced package of measures, which include allowing local licensing authorities to test private hire car drivers and to limit private hire car numbers where there is overprovision. The bill also creates the role of the civic licensing standards officer, which will provide support and reassurance to the public and be an invaluable addition to the existing enforcement arrangements.
Does the First Minister consider that consumer protection for passengers of private hire vehicles can be achieved through customer awareness, as well as through background checks for drivers? Preference for local knowledge or satellite navigation should be left for consumers to decide for themselves.
Our proposals to strengthen enforcement and change the licensing regime are important and right. However, I agree with Cameron Buchanan that there is a role for customer awareness as well. In this area, as in any other area, we want customers to be as educated and aware as possible, so that they can make informed decisions about the services that they use. I agree with that, but the legislative provisions that we are proposing are the right ones.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Points of Order