Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, May 27, 2010

Official Report 966KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2423)

I have a range of engagements to carry forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

In these difficult financial times, what would the First Minister think of a Government organisation that planned a visual identity transition—a change of name, to you and me—on which it planned to spend more than £0.5 million?

I am sure that Iain Gray will inform a startled chamber in his second question, but I can be absolutely certain that, as demonstrated across the range of Government departments, this Government’s efficiency programme stands comparison with any. The difference, of course, is that our efficiencies have been recycled into front-line services in Scotland.

The First Minister is right that he is indeed, as usual, in the dark and I intend to enlighten him. I refer to Scotland the Works—he is probably still none the wiser—which we know as Skills Development Scotland. It was set up just two years ago, at a cost of £16 million, and has now come up with this daft scheme to spend £555,000 rebranding itself. Its real job is supposed to be getting our young people into work, which could not be more important. Why is it wasting our money on this?

The real job of Skills Development is to get our young people into work. That is why we should all welcome the fact that it has exceeded the target of 20,000 new modern apprenticeships in Scotland. Furthermore, given that we all agree across the chamber that there is a challenge with youth unemployment in the context of the severest recession since the 1930s, while acknowledging that youth unemployment in Scotland—at around 13 per cent—is far too high, we should welcome the fact that it is four percentage points lower than across the rest of the United Kingdom. I would have thought that even Iain Gray might have given Skills Development Scotland some credit for the action that it has taken through its job action plan to ensure that so many of our young people are gaining life opportunities.

I am very happy to give Skills Development Scotland credit when it spends money on what it is supposed to spend money on, which is creating the kind of opportunities that the First Minister has elaborated on. However, those targets are not the only things that Skills Development Scotland is exceeding. As well as its visual transition strategy, Skills Development Scotland has a marketing and brand migration plan that will cost not £0.5 million but £1.68 million. As the First Minister can—probably—tell, Skills Development Scotland does not have that money spare, so it will ask the First Minister for a £500,000 top-up.

Let us not forget that the same organisation booked Paul McKenna for unemployed youngsters. Perhaps it will bring Paul McKenna back to hypnotise the First Minister into handing over that cash. Why has the First Minister still not got a grip of that organisation?

The Paul McKenna joke was not very effective the first time that Iain Gray told it some months ago and it is less effective now that it has been recycled. The point was made then that people did not need Paul McKenna when they had Iain Gray to send an entire Parliament to sleep.

Skills Development Scotland is getting on with the job of securing life chances for young people in Scotland. When the target of 20,000 modern apprenticeships was set in the midst of the deepest recession for generations, many people were sceptical that it could be achieved. The fact that the target has been not only achieved but exceeded is a credit to the work of Skills Development Scotland. It does no good whatsoever, when people are engaged in that vital work of gaining life chances for our young people, for that work not to be supported across the chamber as it should be.

Skills Development Scotland, by its actions, is demonstrating its commitment to young people in Scotland. At some point, the leader of the Labour Party will demonstrate a similar commitment. [Interruption.]

Order, Mr McNeil.

From the First Minister’s answer, I take it that he approves of Skills Development Scotland spending £2 million on changing its name and marketing that name change.

I well remember the meeting that the First Minister and I had, when we forced him to include in his budget the apprenticeships target that he trumpets. I well remember him asking me, “How can we possibly deliver this many apprenticeships?” We made some suggestions, the First Minister, to his credit, followed them and we achieved 20,000 apprenticeships. Perhaps the First Minister will listen to me again when I tell him that the £2 million should be spent on more apprenticeship places and skills training.

It is the First Minister who is not too effective if he cannot get a grip of Skills Development Scotland. However, the issue is not only that organisation. Last week, he did not know about nursing jobs going; this week, his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning had to write to parents, apologising for the shambles in our schools; and now money for skills is being spent not only on hypnotists, but on marketing mumbo-jumbo. The Government is adrift. How long will it be before the First Minister’s colleagues realise that they need a rebranding—starting at the top?

Iain Gray will have to decide whether he wants to claim the credit for the success of the 20,000 modern apprenticeships that have been started in Scotland; that is 85 per cent up on the previous year. If that happened only because of the Labour Party’s intense pressure in the Scottish Parliament, why did Labour then vote against the budget?

Iain Gray questions public spending across a range of activities. If his concern is the deep pressure across the range of public services, why on earth are so many of his own front benchers and back benchers calling for the immediate implementation of cuts? [Interruption.] Andy Kerr says that they are not. When I raised the issue last week, I thought that only Andy Kerr was rebelling on that point, but now I find that the Labour Party’s justice spokesman is also attacking the SNP. Richard Baker stated:

“The SNP administration is, for political reasons, deferring cuts until after next year’s elections”.

My belief was that the Labour Party wanted to resist cuts because it did not want to jeopardise recovery in Scotland, but now it is calling—as Des McNulty did a few minutes ago—for the immediate implementation of Tory cuts in Scotland. When Iain Gray decides whether he wants more cuts and immediate cuts, or fewer cuts, perhaps he will be able to come to this Parliament with a semblance of coherence.

The question was about Skills Development Scotland. Iain Gray has another question.

My question is a simple one. Skills Development Scotland has £2 million. Does the First Minister think that it should spend the money on changing its name, or on getting young people into work?

Skills Development Scotland is demonstrating its effectiveness in terms of achieving its targets. It is getting young people into work in Scotland in the most difficult situation that has been faced for many generations. Skills Development Scotland is doing its job of supporting the Scottish community; perhaps the Labour Party should do its job and back Scotland.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2424)

The Secretary of State for Scotland is on paternity leave at present. That gives the opportunity for us all to congratulate him on the birth of his daughter.

I am sure that all members rejoice in that happy event.

The First Minister is having to grapple with the predicted but now inevitable consequence of Labour’s economic mess. Although I accept that that dilemma is not of the First Minister’s making, nonetheless it poses for him and his Government the critical questions of what he will cut and when he will cut it. We now know that the cost of Labour’s mess this year is a penny in every pound that the Scottish Government spends. Doing nothing is not an option. The First Minister’s colleague John Swinney told the Finance Committee last week:

“I have asked for contingency work to be prepared to deal with the possibility of in-year adjustments”.—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 18 May 2010; c 2305.]

In other words, that is this year. Is the First Minister, out of self-interest for his party, planning to keep that information secret, or will he, in the national interest of our country, publish those proposals?

As Annabel Goldie well knows, an independent budget review process is working at present. All its proposals will certainly be published, because they will provide information for the Parliament and people of Scotland on the extent and severity of public spending cuts to come. On the issue of the current year, as I remember it, after discussion with the then shadow chancellor, the Scottish Conservative party announced that it considered it a concession that Scotland would be given the opportunity to defer public spending cuts in the present financial year. Although, obviously, we do not want public spending cuts of that severity in this or any other year, nonetheless, there are certain advantages in doing that.

I can see two advantages. The first is that we do not have to ask people, whether in local government or health services, to tear up this year’s budget allocation, which the Parliament has already agreed. The second and important reason is the view that to cut public spending this year, when the economic recovery is fragile, would jeopardise that recovery. I share that view—it is not shared by the Conservatives at Westminster, although it is shared by a majority in the Parliament. Therefore, for that reason, the Government has chosen to take advantage of the concession that has been offered. I believe that a similar policy will be pursued in Northern Ireland and Wales.

It is indeed the case that the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer has offered the First Minister a degree of flexibility over when he faces up to the problem, but that does not make the problem go away. The First Minister is like a man who refuses to fix a dripping tap and then wonders why the house has flooded. Dealing now with Labour’s mess will not choke off the recovery; it is delay that could make things much worse. Alex Salmond needs either to make savings of one penny in the pound this year or to explain why he will not do so. Gordon Brown refused to make savings ahead of the UK election for political reasons. The First Minister cannot be drawn into that dangerous game, so rather than bind his successor with a unilateral minority Government decision, will he not only publish the options for savings this year, but bring those options to the Parliament for debate and allow the Parliament a vote?

If the Conservative party did not want the concession on deferment of public spending cuts to be used, why on earth did it offer it in the first place? The Scottish Government’s efficiency programme is already engaged in securing key efficiencies in public services in Scotland. For example, in 2008-09, it delivered savings of £839 million, exceeding our target by more than £300 million. Many of the measures that the UK Government claimed on Monday will produce efficiency savings have been under way in the Scottish Government as sensible efficiencies for several years. Efficiency in Government is taking place. Annabel Goldie supported a budget this year in the Parliament that projected a 50 per cent fall in the marketing budget and a 5 per cent cut in the administration budget to add to the 25 per cent reduction in quangos in Scotland that is under way. Those are efficiencies in Government that are already being employed by the Administration.

The context is that the public spending cuts from London that are faced by the Scottish Parliament, Government and people are unlike anything that we have seen for a generation and more. Therefore, the very least that can be done is the most sensible and coherent planning to meet that situation. That would certainly not be helped by tearing up in-year budgets or by the chaos and confusion that that would inevitably cause.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2425)

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

Today in Parliament, the Scottish National Party Government, backed by the Tories, is trying to limit the real change that Scotland needs in tackling climate change. Every other party—[Laughter.]

Order.

Every other party—and Parliament’s Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee—believes that this minority Government should aim higher, tackle climate change with more determination and make a real difference. Will the First Minister’s Government accept that it needs to be on the side of real change in tackling environmental emissions? Will he change his Government’s current position on that matter?

The Government’s position is, of course, informed by the expert Committee on Climate Change, and we have exceeded its recommendations—that is what we are presenting. One of the great strengths of Scotland’s position is that the 42 per cent target for 2020 was agreed by the whole Parliament. That has strengthened our ability to project Scotland’s responsibility on these matters to the world.

As Tavish Scott knows, the equivalent target under the previous United Kingdom Government was 34 per cent by 2020. I am certain that Liberal Democrat members on the Opposition benches in Westminster said that that target was inadequate and that the Labour Government should match the ambition of the Scottish Parliament—that was in the context of the failure of the Labour Administration to meet that target.

Now that the Liberal Democrats are in a position of influence in government, we are all confident that the UK will soon be moving to the 42 per cent target that was established by the Scottish Parliament.

Mr Salmond is not responsible for the UK; he is responsible for policy in this Parliament. That is what I am asking about.

This morning, climate change groups said that there is much more that can be done, with regard to energy, to tackle climate change. In 2004, the SNP said that an energy efficiency plan was urgent. Six years later, however, there is no such plan. In opposition, the SNP promised 3 per cent annual reductions in emissions, so the half of 1 per cent that it proposes now that it is in government is not good enough. When that figure was rejected by the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, the Government’s response was just another half of 1 per cent. Is it not time to follow up Scotland’s cross-party legislation on climate change with cross-party action every year that will tackle climate change?

If the First Minister flies to the Maldives in October with 1 per cent, having promised 3 per cent, he will not be speaking for Scotland; he truly will be a minority. Does the First Minister acknowledge that his current measure is inadequate, and will he ensure that his ministers open the books and help all parties to build the approach that Scotland needs?

I am sure that, in the new atmosphere of respect and co-operation, Tavish Scott would not like to misrepresent what has been said by the campaign organisations that have commented on the Scottish Government’s proposals. He will remember that Richard Dixon of the WWF, the chairman of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, said that the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee should

“recommend approval of the annual targets order”

and that the targets should be

“the minimum that the Government should try to meet.”—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 11 May 2010; c 2968.]

When the very organisation that Tavish Scott is now quoting actually recommended approval, is there not a question about why the Liberal Democrat members of the committee seemed to disagree with the advocacy of those organisations that they are now claiming in support of their position?

It is not just a question of the commitment of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to the proposals and the range of commitments that are being made in order to bring them about. The proposals, and the expert advice from the Committee on Climate Change, detail the reductions in carbon emissions that will take Scotland to the 42 per cent target by 2020. They are detailed year by year. For the first three years, the Scottish Government is exceeding the recommendations. That determination and commitment on our part is absolute. I stress, again, that one of the great strengths of the Scottish position, as articulated last year, is that it was subject not to politicking but to the determination to meet the climate change challenge. We should put the challenge first and the politicking second.

---

Boiler Scrappage Scheme

4. To ask the First Minister what the anticipated average savings in terms of fuel bills and carbon output will be for applicants to the energy saving Scotland boiler scrappage scheme.(S3F-2437)

We expect that boilers replaced under our energy saving Scotland boiler scrappage scheme will cut the annual heating bill of an average three-bedroom, semi-detached household by £235. Each installation will also save 1 tonne of carbon dioxide each year.

The scheme is just one tool in our wider strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve the world-leading targets that were just referred to.

My understanding is that the £2 million or so available in vouchers has already been allocated. What more can the Government do to ensure that those who have missed out on the scheme can benefit from other schemes?

I am delighted to say that we continue to provide targeted support for this financial year through the £25 million area-based home insulation scheme and the fuel poverty-focused energy assistance package. Last year, 10,077 heating system measures were installed under the energy assistance package, including 8,871 complete systems and 1,206 boiler replacements. All households in Scotland can have access to energy efficiency advice through the energy saving Scotland advice network, which covers the whole of Scotland. In 2009-10, the network advised more than 260,000 householders, helping them to save money on their energy bills and reduce their emissions.

As Nigel Don suggested, the Government scheme, on a first-come, first-served basis, opened and closed within 36 hours. Is the First Minister satisfied that the requirement for applicants to arrange a visit from a heating engineer, who would then need to quote before any application could be made, did not inevitably disadvantage those in remote rural areas? What safeguards were put in place to ensure that my constituents—and perhaps many of his constituents—were able to access the scheme on a level playing field with applicants from more urban areas?

As has just been said, the scrappage scheme vouchers were fully allocated, indicating a great interest in the scheme throughout Scotland. As Nigel Don indicated, the scheme is one of a range of measures being taken by this Government to ensure that energy efficiency is available throughout the country.

On the advice network, in 2009-10, 260,000 householders received advice. There is no shortage of enthusiasm among people for engaging in such schemes. [Interruption.]

Order.

However, there is a shortage of funds. Perhaps the member will prevail on the new coalition Government to prioritise the funds that could come to Scotland to help us to engage in our targets.

Given the massive response from Scottish householders in such a small space of time, surely this is precisely the sort of scheme that the Scottish Government should support. Will the Government now commit to extending the scheme to benefit the thousands of our constituents who could not make the time horizon of 24 hours? The scheme would create jobs and reduce carbon emissions; surely we can all agree on that, and the First Minister can respond.

The contrast will be noted between Labour Party members demanding immediate cutbacks on public spending this year and the constant calls from the Labour Party to increase public spending. Indeed, this morning Andy Kerr again accused the Scottish Government of being profligate, while other Labour members accuse the Scottish Government—[Interruption.]

Order.

—of not funding schemes. It may have occurred to many members that one of the reasons for trying to get Scotland’s money back in the fossil fuel levy is that that would allow us to pursue renewable energy and energy efficiency schemes throughout the country. I am sure that, even if her leader is not, Sarah Boyack is fully behind the attempt by Scotland to reclaim the £182 million fossil fuel levy denied to us by her party over the past six years.

---

Calman Commission

5. To ask the First Minister whether discussions have taken place with the United Kingdom Government regarding the implementation of the proposals of the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution. (S3F-2432)

I discussed the UK Government’s plans for implementing the recommendations with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland on 14 May 2010. There was agreement on many of the recommendations to transfer responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament, but there are very substantial issues to be worked through in terms of the financial recommendations.

If the First Minister continues to reject the principle of devolving tax powers, as contained in the Calman commission proposals, does he not risk preventing progress in making the Scottish Parliament accountable for what it spends? As the First Minister continues to dither on whether he has the bottle to put his independence bill to the vote, will he at least let the will of the Scottish Parliament prevail by supporting better financial accountability and stronger devolution without delay?

I am surprised that Pauline McNeill has not picked up on some of the information that was mentioned in this morning’s debate. For example, it was pointed out to her that on 25 November 2009 the UK Government—that is, the Labour Government—rejected nine of the 23 Calman commission recommendations, among which were key financial proposals such as assigning to Scotland 50 per cent of income tax revenues collected from dividends and savings, devolving the air passenger duty and consulting Scottish ministers on the appointment of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs commissioners. Crucially, it also changed a very sensible proposal from the Calman commission with regard to borrowing to something so restrictive that it could never be used by any Parliament or Government. When Pauline McNeill persuades her colleagues to endorse the Calman commission’s proposals “in full”—as the Labour amendment for this morning’s debate said—she might have some credibility when she comes to this Parliament and asks other people to endorse them.

Does the First Minister agree that recent election results clearly showed a tale of two countries, with only one Tory member of Parliament being left in Scotland? Does he also agree that, although any of the extra powers set out by the Calman commission would be welcome in this Parliament, the only way in which we can create a fairer society in Scotland and ensure that the people of Scotland prosper is through having an independent Scotland?

Yes, I certainly agree with that proposition. [Interruption.]

Order.

In terms of democracy, I think that it would be good—and that the people of Scotland should expect—to get the Government that they voted for instead of the Government that other people voted for. That was one of the reasons why two weeks ago I was so keen on the so-called progressive coalition; it would have enabled the people of Scotland to feel that their votes had counted in the general election campaign. Unfortunately, the Labour Party decided to walk away from that particular responsibility. Sandra White is absolutely correct to make the point that, among the many other advantages that it would entail, independence for Scotland would ensure that Scottish democracy was respected at each and every election.

---

Teachers (Abuse)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to support teachers who are subject to abuse in the classroom or school. (S3F-2427)

Teachers who have suffered abuse in the classroom are able to access a range of support services provided by the Scottish Government, councils and indeed schools. The focus is on reducing the level of indiscipline in the classroom and, in that respect, it is encouraging to read the most recent study on classroom behaviour, which found that teachers themselves believe that behaviour has improved since the comparable 2006 study and that a very large majority of teachers—89 per cent in primary and 85 per cent in secondary—are confident of their ability to deal with pupil indiscipline in the classroom. The latest national statistics, which were published in January, show that, as a result of the hard work of teachers and the initiatives that we have taken, there has been since we came to office a 24 per cent fall in exclusions, which is the lowest recorded level since the figures were first collected.

I am sure that the First Minister will agree that even shouting can be a form of abuse in the workplace. [Laughter.] How will the Government ensure that therapeutic crisis intervention training, class management and behaviour management are at the heart of any changes that come about as a result of the review of teacher training?

Given the new respect agenda, I do not think that the member should attack the Labour benches for shouting through First Minister’s questions.

I agree with the substance of the member’s question. Although, as I have outlined, substantial progress has been made, I accept that there is substantial work to be done, and positive proposals from him and every other source will be properly considered.

The First Minister is no doubt aware that incidents involving younger pupils are increasing. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to increase the support available to teachers at the younger end of the classroom spectrum, particularly in early years? Moreover, does he share my concerns that the increasing casualisation of teaching staff is doing nothing to boost their morale?

Karen Gillon will agree that the statistics that I quoted show a generally improving picture. If there are any other specific measures that she, Hugh O’Donnell or any other member would like to bring forward, they will be positively received.

12:30 Meeting suspended until 14:15.

14:15 On resuming—