First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00624)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland. In particular, in the light of the recessionary gross domestic product statistics for the United Kingdom that were published yesterday, I will again write to the Prime Minister to stress the importance of going ahead with the programme of shovel-ready projects from the north to the south-west of Scotland to stimulate the Scottish economy and nourish the hopes of keeping Scotland out of recession.
Yes, of course, but we would have welcomed it if the First Minister had used the investment in the Forth road bridge to create jobs in Scotland rather than jobs in China.
After days of what some might describe as uncharacteristic silence and the more common prevarication and bluster, last night the First Minister finally alighted on a defence of his position to support Rupert Murdoch’s bid to take over BSkyB. He took that position, he says, because the takeover would have created jobs in Scotland. When did the First Minister first articulate that view in public? How many jobs did James Murdoch promise him?
As we know from the e-mails that have been released, the importance of the issue was first discussed on 1 November 2010, in an e-mail that said that a Liberal MP—we now think that it was a Liberal MSP—wanted to take forward the importance of jobs and investment in Scotland to the secretary of state. I very much agreed with that position.
Johann Lamont will remember the correspondence that we released of the meeting that I had with James Murdoch a year past January, which looked, in particular, at the prospects of employment in Scotland and of adding to the 6,300 whom BSkyB employs in Dunfermline, Uddingston and Livingston. She will, of course, recall the announcement of a further 100 jobs last March, which added to the Livingston total.
I hope that Johann Lamont is aware of the further significance of the issue for jobs in Scotland. One of the issues that was discussed last year was that, for security reasons, BSkyB was moving from having nine contractors to having two contractors. That carried with it the risk of major job losses in Scotland unless Scotland won the contracts. I am delighted to say that HEROtsc won the major contract. That led to last week’s announcement, which I will quote:
“Glasgow’s newest employers today officially opened their state-of-the-art contact centre in the city and vowed ... to bring 900 jobs to their Atlantic Quay site. HEROtsc, Scotland’s leading customer management company, announced last month that they were coming to Glasgow after expanding their contract to provide sales and service support to BSkyB.”
I hope that Johann Lamont will welcome that huge number of jobs coming to the city of Glasgow.
I always welcome jobs coming to my own city. I would also welcome it if the First Minister answered the question that he was asked. I wait for that day to come—maybe it will come at some point in the future.
The reason why the First Minister cannot tell us the first time that he articulated in public the view to which I referred is that the first time that he did so was last night. The explanation that he gave was less of a reason and more of an alibi. He claims that this was about gaining jobs, but Rupert Murdoch says that he spoke to the First Minister to apologise for cutting jobs.
Of course, not everyone agreed that the deal would be good for Scotland, which is what the First Minister now says. In October 2010, a motion that opposed the News International deal was lodged in the Scottish Parliament and was signed by the member whose constituency includes BSkyB’s biggest Scottish base, Angela Constance, who is now the First Minister’s Minister for Youth Employment. However, it seems that Scottish National Party policy had changed by 1 November of that year, because we know from Frederic Michel’s e-mails that it was mission accomplished and that the First Minister was prepared to lobby Vince Cable on Murdoch’s behalf.
We know that that was still the position in February and March last year and that Alex Salmond had a call scheduled with the new Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt. However, on 13 July last year, all six of Alex Salmond’s members of Parliament at Westminster supported a motion asking Rupert Murdoch to withdraw the bid for BSkyB. If it was really such a good thing for Scotland, as the First Minister said last night, and if jobs relied on it, why did he support his MPs in opposing the deal?
Because that was—[Interruption.]
Order. We will hear the First Minister.
It was because that was after the revelations about phone hacking and Milly Dowler. I would have thought that that was patently obvious.
I can understand that Johann Lamont is perhaps not fully aware of the importance of jobs in Uddingston, Dunfermline and Livingston, but why on earth is she not aware of the importance of jobs in the city of Glasgow? In the evidence that Rupert Murdoch gave yesterday, he referred to exactly the point to which I alluded in my first answer, which is the fact that the Sky contract was going from nine centres to two. That carried with it the huge risk, last year, of the loss of thousands of Scottish jobs. Fortunately, HEROtsc won the contract, which has led to the opening of the call centre and supply centre in Glasgow, and the 900 jobs at Atlantic Quay. Johann Lamont might not be aware of that, but Sandra White is, because it is in her constituency. I presume that Johann Lamont’s deputy, Anas Sarwar, is aware of the 900 jobs coming to his constituency.
Johann Lamont says that we have not talked about the issue, but we published correspondence with James Murdoch months ago that showed that the meeting in London concerned the protection and expansion of jobs in Dunfermline and Livingston. Johann Lamont might not think that those things are important, but I think that it is a First Minister’s job to advocate jobs for Scotland, and I will continue to do so.
The First Minister did not listen to what I said. His Minister for Youth Employment, representing Livingston, opposed the deal, and his MPs opposed it, too. I welcome the jobs coming to Glasgow, but they have nothing to do with the issue about News International.
The First Minister says that the position changed because of Milly Dowler. The revelation that Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper hacked Milly Dowler’s phone was the moment that any doubt about Rupert Murdoch was removed and the moment when his empire started to fall yet, after that devastating revelation, the First Minister became the only senior politician in this country—perhaps the only one in the world—to invite him round for tea.
Rupert’s newspapers might be being investigated for bribery, perverting the course of justice, destroying evidence and perjury, but he is still welcome in wee Eck’s house. The First Minister wrote an article for the launch of Rupert’s newspaper saying that the issue was to do not with just News International, but with all the newspaper industry. There are three police investigations, a judicial inquiry and nearly 50 arrests, but Eck still puts the kettle on for Rupert. Does the First Minister not realise that all he is achieving is a demeaning of the office that he craved for so long?
I remember writing the article in The Scottish Sun on Sunday. It was followed the next week by an article by Yvette Cooper, who wrote a very interesting article indeed.
I know that the Labour Party wishes us to pretend that the days of courting the Murdoch press were all back in the days of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Unfortunately, that does not fit with the facts. William Shawcross, who is Rupert Murdoch’s biographer, wrote in The Spectator on 16 July 2011:
“Ed Miliband was beaming when I saw him talking to Rupert Murdoch at the media magnate’s summer party at the Orangery, Kensington Palace, just three weeks ago. The Labour leader has since admitted that he did not raise the matter of phone hacking that evening. Of course not! He was trying to charm.”
That is rather like the picture that I have here of Ed Miliband, from an article in which he was advocating, and looking for support from, The Sun. He declares:
“Red Ed is dead ... I will stand and my party will stand for the mainstream of Britain — for Sun readers and for their concerns ... he refused to put a date on when a new set of Labour policies would be ready, saying only: ‘You will read it first in The Sun.’”
After 15 years of worshipping at the feet of Rupert Murdoch, the Labour Party now treats him as a pariah. Its refusal to explain the canapés at the Orangery and the contacts over the period—[Interruption.]
Order. I would like to hear the First Minister.
When the people of Scotland see Johann Lamont and hear the Labour Party’s words, they will think of humbug and hypocrisy.
I hate to think what the people will think of that performance by the First Minister.
I remind the First Minister again that Ed Miliband lodged a motion that opposed the deal. The First Minister’s own MPs supported that motion. I will not ask the First Minister whether he supported Murdoch so that Murdoch’s Sun would support him. The public will have made up their minds about that. The truth is that the issue is not the First Minister’s evident cynicism, which we have seen in the past, but his infatuation with very rich men.
First, the First Minister gave his office’s full backing to the then Sir Fred Goodwin in a deal that broke the bank. Who can forget—[Interruption.]
Order. We will hear Ms Lamont.
I am sure that a lot of this is as much of a revelation to the SNP back benchers as it was to us.
Who can forget, even without yesterday’s reminder, the deal with Donald Trump? Now there is the deal with Murdoch. There are common themes. Each case was secret; each deal was a fiasco; and in each case the truth had to be dragged out of the First Minister bit by bit—big deals, big men, one not quite so big man, and no jobs, just job losses.
The First Minister says that it is about jobs. I think that he just likes rich men. Some say that the First Minister has been devious, conniving and double-dealing. Is he not just trying to cover up the fact that a rich man has played him for a fool again? Is it not the case that he is no statesman, just a sucker?
Johann Lamont refers to job losses; I refer back to my answer to her first question about jobs, which she did not take in. The fear was that going from nine contractors to two contractors would result in substantial job losses. I read out in extensive detail the fact that, thankfully, HEROtsc won the contract and a 900-job call centre has been opened in the city of Glasgow. Johann Lamont did not know that when she asked her first question about jobs. She did not realise that I had answered it when she asked her second question and she now repeats the point in a pre-prepared fourth question.
Talking about Fred Goodwin, that would be Sir Fred Goodwin—knighted by Gordon Brown on the advice of Jack McConnell.
Up until last Sunday, Donald Trump’s argument to the Scottish Government was that it was bound by a deal that he claimed had been made between him and Lord McConnell during the previous Administration. I really think that Johann Lamont should understand that and perhaps inform Lord McConnell and Donald Trump that we are not bound by the policies of the previous Administration in Scotland. Thank goodness for that.
I will tell Johann Lamont one thing that is consistent for any First Minister of Scotland, which is that they will put the interests of Scotland and the interests of jobs first. How do I know that? I will read out part of an interview with Johann Lamont on “Good Morning Scotland” yesterday, so that the chamber understands. The exchange was:
“Gary Robertson
Would you, if you were First Minister”—
heaven forfend—
“be meeting Rupert Murdoch and others to talk about jobs in Scotland?
Johann Lamont ...
Well, you would have to meet ... people to talk about jobs”.
There we have it—the whole cant, humbug and hypocrisy.
The job of a First Minister is to advocate jobs for Scotland. This First Minister will continue to do that.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00636)
I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the immediate future.
While we are on the topic of New York-based billionaires, the First Minister was asked by the Local Government and Communities Committee in January 2008 whether he had met before the previous December any members of the Trump Organization. He replied that he had met representatives at the Menie estate on 24 September 2007. He did not mention the Donald, candlelit Manhattan dinners or talking for hours on their favoured subjects of golf and wind farms, but such a dinner occurred just three months before the committee meeting. Did the First Minister intentionally mislead Parliament or did he just forget, in the glory of supping with Murdoch one night, that he had supped with Trump the next night?
I am sorry to disabuse Ruth Davidson of the idea of a candlelit dinner between me and Donald Trump, but the event was a globalscot dinner in New York, which was attended by Alexandria Real Estate Equities, General Electric, the head of discovery research at Wyeth, McKinsey & Company and the Morgan Stanley banking corporation. That does not sound a likely venue for exchanging commitments about a planning application five years down the road.
I repeat that the Government has never given any assurances against a planning application for an offshore wind development at Aberdeen. I cannot speak for the previous Administration.
The most significant point that validates that position is as follows. In February this year—I wrote to the Donald afterwards, as I had received a number of letters from him—I had a phone conversation with Donald Trump. I tried to work out the nature of his ferocious opposition not just to offshore wind at Aberdeen but to wind power in general, which seemed to be a new phenomenon. Right through that phone call, he accepted that he had never had any commitments from the current Administration, but he considered us bound by the previous Administration’s commitment. That position was maintained by his spokesman George Sorial right through last week in a BBC interview. Only on Sunday was it decided that a globalscot event that many others had attended was the moment when a commitment had been given, which is rather unlikely.
For the first time in her life, Ruth Davidson has paid attention to the advice of Murdo Fraser. If that is the best that he can do, I suggest that she should get a new adviser.
If the First Minister had nothing to hide from a 12-man dinner, why not tell the committee about it just three months later?
With his overweening self-regard, the First Minister never knowingly undersells what he believes to be his political gifts, but I do not think that even he thought that he had the skills to make Donald Trump look credible. We know that the dinner that Alex Salmond failed to disclose to the committee took place—I thank him for finally admitting that. We know that he and Donald talked for hours. We know that they talked about golf and wind farms. Is the First Minister seriously asking the Scottish people to believe that, when a multibillionaire who was attracted to Scotland with great fanfare by the First Minister’s predecessor was threatening to pull the plug as soon as the First Minister took office, he did not—like some latter-day Arthur Daley—tell his new best pal that he would get it sorted?
Something here stinks. Will the First Minister set the record straight and state categorically before the chamber that no such discussions on planning or wind farms took place?
There was no discussion and no assurances were ever given in that light. Ruth Davidson had better get the timeline right. The Donald has not been threatening to pull out of the Menie estate until the past few months, and a variety of reasons have been given—not, incidentally, for pulling out of the golf course development, which by all accounts looks absolutely wonderful. First, Michael Forbes’s croft was the reason for not having the hotel development. It is only very recently that we have alighted on his opposition to the Government’s policy of renewable energy. If Ruth Davidson cares to check the record, she will see that that was not even the position of the Trump Organization in a letter that it wrote just a year or so ago.
I am struck by what Ruth Davidson says about credibility. I confess that I saw only the excerpts of the evidence session yesterday, but I was struck by Donald Trump’s response when he was asked for the evidence for this great difficulty in Scottish tourism. He said:
“I am the evidence.”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 25 April 2012; c 1334.]
That struck me not so much as credible as a bit like the Judge Dredd view of tourism in Scotland. When people in Scotland look at the issue, they will look at jobs and developments. They will see the announcements today for the Moray Firth and they will see the prospect of 28,000 jobs in offshore wind. It will be a shame on the Conservative Party of Scotland that, while the party in London supports such developments, Ruth Davidson and her colleagues do not want to see those developments and those massive numbers of jobs in green energy in Scotland.
I hear what the First Minister says about Milly Dowler. Does he regret that terrible article in The Sun in which he played down the role of Rupert Murdoch’s papers in phone hacking? Is he ashamed that he put his political motives above the interests of the phone hacking victims?
My opposition and revulsion to phone hacking are on the record many times—I can supply that information to the Scottish Parliament information centre. I supported the establishment of the Leveson inquiry; indeed, we had to comment on the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry. The deplorable aspect of phone hacking will be fully dealt with by the inquiry and, I hope, by the police force and the judicial system on both sides of the border.
Given the evidence that is coming before Leveson—just a few weeks ago, we got an insight from ITN into the extent of the payments that were made by a number of news organisations, which are the subject of investigations into suspected breaches and criminality—one of the things that I am certain will come out of the Leveson inquiry is that there were widespread malpractice and potential illegality across the press. That seems, to me, evident. I hope and believe that the Leveson inquiry will pursue that without fear and without favour.
European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre
3. To ask the First Minister when a decision will be made on the European offshore wind deployment centre. (S4F-00622)
As the responsible minister, Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, will make a decision on the European offshore wind deployment centre on the basis of our planning legislation. He will do so once there has been full and thorough consideration of all material issues connected with the application. The fact that I am the constituency MSP means that I will not determine the application, and all my comments on the matter should be taken in that light.
Now that my favourite pantomime villain has left the stage, I hope that the First Minister is coming to regret having been drawn so easily into Mr Trump’s orbit, finding himself with a half-built carbuncle in his constituency and a billionaire threatening legal action against a vital demonstration site for offshore wind power. The Parliament has committed itself to fighting the climate change that Trump does not believe in and securing a lower-carbon energy supply that Trump does not care about. Can we now rely on the Scottish Government and the First Minister to treat the wind farm proposal with the seriousness that it deserves, defend it vigorously in the courts—if it comes to that—and take no delay in telling Mr Trump where to get off? Kicking him out of the globalscot network would be a good start.
I had hoped that I would be able to agree with everything that Patrick Harvie said when he asked his question, but let me start with a point of disagreement. By all accounts—by every account—the golf course that is emerging on the Menie estate looks absolutely tremendous, and I do not think that Patrick Harvie’s description of it was reasonable.
The point that I made to the Scottish Trades Union Congress this week is the one that pertains. We welcome investment in Scotland. It is absolutely vital to have investment across the range of technologies and industries, and golf course investment is very valid, as well. The issue now is not just investing in Scotland but whether investing in Scotland confers ownership of Scotland. Just because someone invests in a vital project does not mean that they have the right to say that everyone else’s project cannot go ahead. Other people’s projects, including the offshore demonstrator, need to be assessed in the proper manner, and I am certain that the minister for energy will do that according to his duties and responsibilities.
On the generality, I say two things. Anyone who does not know my position on and advocacy for the potential and wealth of renewable energy in the marine sector in Scotland has not been paying much attention to Scottish politics over the past few years. There is the most extraordinary potential for the reindustrialisation of vast areas of this country, around the ports of Scotland, in relation to research and development, engineering, installation and servicing of the new machines that will power much of the next century and are an essential part of the future of this country.
Youth Unemployment
4. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to address concerns raised by the Scottish Trades Union Congress regarding youth unemployment. (S4F-00631)
I was pleased to address the STUC congress in Inverness on Tuesday, when I set out the work that the Government has undertaken to support youth employment—work that, in many cases, has been supported by the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Angela Constance, who is the only youth employment minister in these islands, has set out in her draft youth employment strategy the “all-Government and all-Scotland” approach, which is gaining substantial support.
This month we began the roll-out of the opportunities for all programme, which guarantees to every 16 to 19-year-old school leaver who is not already in work, education or training that they will be offered a suitable training or educational opportunity. On the 25,000 modern apprenticeships, we now know that the number reached more than 26,000 in the last financial year. Best of all, the completion rate for apprenticeships reached a record 75 per cent.
A huge amount requires to be done, but let us pay regard to the substantial amount that is being done.
The STUC raised the issue of female unemployment. Can the First Minister give us an insight into what the Government is doing in that regard, in particular?
I said to the Scottish Trades Union Congress that we hope to replicate the employment seminar—which I think carried all-sectoral and all-party support and was considered by all, including the STUC, to be a substantial success—and apply the approach to a female employment summit.
It is the case that even as unemployment in Scotland has been falling and male unemployment has been falling dramatically, female unemployment has been rising and is now marginally above male unemployment in Scotland. The application of the all-Scotland approach to finding jobs for women in the workforce is fundamental and is widely supported. In particular, the approach gained a warm welcome at the STUC.
Reoffending
5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide additional funding to community projects to reduce reoffending. (S4F-00632)
Since 2006-07, we have increased funding for community justice programmes by 22 per cent, in the face of significant cuts by the Westminster Government. We are increasing funding for community justice by £2 million in cash terms between 2010-11 and 2014-15.
Does the First Minister acknowledge the concerns of providers such as Laurie Russell of the Wise Group, who said at the weekend that the system was broken, when it came to providing meaningful support for efforts to reduce reoffending? If the system is broken, it needs fixing, so when will the First Minister’s Government publish the detail of its plans for resourcing such initiatives in future?
The development of a credible, community-based approach to tackling reoffending was shown by the introduction of the community payback order in February last year. The approach will continue to be applied and further plans will be published.
I know that Lewis Macdonald would not want to give the impression that he does not welcome the commitment on funds that I mentioned and the fact that, against the backdrop of the deteriorating overall budget, we have sustained expenditure on vital community projects. Nor would he want to give the impression that we do not have substantial success to point to in the overall crime levels. An extra 1,000 police officers in the communities and streets of Scotland has meant that we now have the lowest recorded level of crime in Scotland for 35 years. I would have thought that the whole Parliament could jointly congratulate our police service on that fantastic achievement.
12:30
Meeting suspended.
14:15
On resuming—