Plenary, 29 Jan 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, January 29, 2009

Official Report 774KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1398)

Later today, I will meet Opposition leaders who have asked for meetings to discuss taking forward the budget process to completion. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has contacted every local authority in Scotland to explain the circumstances that threaten to disrupt their budgeting. Hopefully, that will concentrate the minds of the Parliament on the jobs and services outside the chamber that depend on the decisions that we make inside the chamber.

Yesterday morning, John Swinney said:

"The duty for me is to put forward a budget that convinces Parliament."

I agree. Last night, he acknowledged that he had failed in that duty. He failed because the Scottish National Party approached the serious matter of the Scottish budget with reckless brinkmanship and arrogance. Hubris indeed. It chose to seek narrow political advantage rather than broad, constructive consensus. That approach must not be repeated.

I welcome the First Minister's meetings today, and offer him the opportunity to explain to Scotland how he intends to change his approach to secure support for the resubmitted budget bill.

The bill failed because the Labour Party, as the principal Opposition party, decided to put its own narrow interests before employment and jobs for Scotland. That is why we have editorials such as that in today's Scottish Daily Express:

"Labour MSPs should be ashamed of themselves".

There were a number of revealing contributions in yesterday's debate, but none more revealing than that from John Park MSP, who responded to the realisation that the SNP had offered the Labour Party one of its key demands—the apprenticeship guarantee, which I think is vital—with the words:

"Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the Government would have announced that anyway, regardless of the budget process?"—[Official Report, 28 January 2009; c 14452.]

As if an issue as important as apprenticeships should depend on who was making the announcement. That is exactly the problem with the Labour Party when it refuses to face its responsibilities.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. There is little sign of the Government having learned any lesson from yesterday. One editorial does not the news coverage make—I suggest that the First Minister reads the editorials in some of the other newspapers—nor does one proposal constitute constructive discussion.

Labour has a series of sincere proposals that we believe will help Scotland through the global economic crisis. A young person in Scotland has less than half the chance of an apprenticeship place that a young person in England has. We want that corrected. Most people would consider that a reasonable and compelling objective. In a budget of £34 billion, no one would believe it to be too much to ask. However, last night the SNP described that constructive dialogue as Labour "playing games". We have heard more of the same today.

Will the First Minister learn the lesson of yesterday, and promise to set aside such language and give an assurance that he will enter into discussions seriously, responsibly and in a spirit of good faith?

We have entered into discussions seriously, responsibly and in a spirit of good faith. I agree with Iain Gray. Responding to only one constructive suggestion is not enough, which is why, for example, in response to another of the Labour Party's five demands we announced a town centre regeneration fund of £60 million, when they wanted one for £50 million. I see Labour members pointing at the Conservatives. Because the Conservatives championed that idea, it suddenly becomes invalid. Does that not imply that what Labour wanted out of the budget was not constructive investment for the people of Scotland but to be able to claim for itself ideas that were shared throughout the Parliament? [Applause.]

That is enough applause, thank you.

The First Minister's responses demonstrate exactly the narrow party advantage that he has brought to and seeks from the process. Let us examine his responses.

In his first answer, the First Minister talked about the consequences of last night's vote, although he seems to have learned little about the consequences for his own standing. For some time now, the SNP and its loyal servants in the matter, the Tories, have claimed that £1.8 billion would be lost to Scotland if the Budget (Scotland) (No 2) Bill fell and that there would be no increase in funding next year. In fact, the Tories are claiming today that that has already happened, but it is not true.

I am sure that the First Minister would not wish to allow the Parliament or the people of Scotland to be misled, so let me read from an e-mail from the assistant clerk to the Finance Committee:

"If the Budget Bill for 2009-10 was passed at some point after 1 April and only came into force on, say, 1 June 2009, then the Government would get the full allocation of circa £34 billion".

[Interruption.]

Order.

Yesterday, the moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland reminded us of Burns's words

"an honest man's the noblest work of God".

Is the First Minister honest enough to admit that the claim that £1.8 billion will be lost is just gratuitous scaremongering?

I have heard many questions in my time as First Minister, but that must rate as the most extraordinary of them all. We are now told by Iain Gray that, apparently, it would not cause disruption to Scottish public services if a budget bill did not pass until June. What are the health boards throughout Scotland to do in the meantime? What are the local authorities throughout Scotland to do in the meantime? What is every voluntary organisation in Scotland to do in the meantime? [Applause.]

Order.

Let us put it in terms of jobs: £1.8 billion is 35,000 jobs. Sooner or later, the Labour Party had better realise, as the first ever Opposition party to vote against a budget at stage 3 in this Parliament, that it is jeopardising 35,000 jobs.

Mr Gray, a brief final question, please.

Mr Swinney made it clear last night that the Government intends to seek consensus and lodge a budget bill that the Parliament can support. That is what the Government requires to do in order to avoid the kind of disruption that has been mentioned. That is its responsibility. [Interruption.]

Order.

The process has to be about the SNP Government responding to the scale of the economic challenge that we face. Yesterday's gross domestic product figures simply emphasise the seriousness of the challenge in Scotland. Last night, when Mr Swinney was asked how much of his budget he had changed, he answered, "£82 million." That is one quarter of one per cent.

Question!

Order. I will decide on the timings in the chamber.

We know that more can be done. We have been saying that since October. Our door is still open to discuss the budget that Scotland needs. Can the First Minister promise the same, and can we believe him?

We are now making progress. We have moved from the context of the previous question, where there was to be no disruption at all and we could have a budget through in June, to an acceptance that there will be serious disruption. If the Labour Party starts to understand the consequences of its vote yesterday, perhaps we will get to the solution.

I have pointed out a number of issues on which the SNP had made agreements with, or at least offers to the Labour Party. I have mentioned two already. One was apparently invalid because we were going to do it anyway, and the second was invalid because the Conservatives were also proposing it. How about the promised increased investment in PACE—partnership action for continuing employment? That is another of Labour's demands that was met, but it is apparently now swept aside because Labour wants to seek some other advantage.

Yes, 35,000 jobs are at stake, as are the apprenticeship places that are going through; the small business bonus scheme; the council tax freeze; the extra police officers; the accelerated capital investment; the help for people who are facing redundancy; the zero waste fund; free personal care; regeneration; capital city costs; the reduction in prescription charges; and the town centre regeneration fund. They are all at risk because of Labour's attitude, and it is high time that Iain Gray started to face up to his responsibilities, not to his back benchers or to Jim Murphy, but to this Parliament and the people of Scotland.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1399)

I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.

The latest International Monetary Fund figures show that the United Kingdom will suffer the worst slump of all industrialised nations since the second world war and that the Scottish economy is now falling faster than that of the UK as a whole. It is precisely because of that frightening backdrop that the Scottish Conservatives negotiated in the budget the abolition of or cut in local taxes for 150,000 of our small businesses; secured the continuing freeze of council tax; and got a pledge for a £60 million town centre regeneration fund to address this real, happening crisis.

Sadly, that goal was not shared by every party in this chamber. For Iain Gray and the Scottish Labour Party, this was not about addressing Labour's recession; instead, it was about trying to stage some bloodless debating chamber coup to ensconce him as First Minister. Let me make it clear: I shall have no truck with such antics. Does the First Minister agree that Scotland is already badly served by one Labour Government and that we certainly do not need two? [Interruption.]

Order. That's enough.

Do I get time to answer this question? Yes, I agree.

I want to say a little about the town centre regeneration fund. We were unable to put the concept, which did not evolve with the SNP, into last year's budget; however, in negotiations with other parties, the opportunity presented itself precisely because last August—months before Westminster did it—we accelerated forward housing investment when we realised the extent of the crisis. That allowed us to allocate the consequential capital investment to other projects. I believe that, given the position that the real economy faces and the position of town centres and our communities across Scotland, this is exactly the moment when £60 million of capital investment throughout the country will do some good.

Every constituency MSP—indeed, every MSP—in this chamber should start to think about the projects in their communities that would be valuable this year but that are now at risk. Indeed, we should think about the global total of jobs—a number running well into four figures—that would be created by this one measure alone. It is exactly that type of project, which, as I say, did not originate with the SNP but is now shared by parties across the chamber, that has been put at risk by people not putting the interests of Scotland before their political objectives.

I am certain that all party leaders will have received this morning the public's views on yesterday's budget debacle. Our first priority must be to get a budget for Scotland passed in the chamber. We must remove the spectre of council tax increases and public service cuts; we need stability, not uncertainty; and clarity, not confusion. It is no victory for anyone in this Parliament for it to be a laughing stock. In an e-mail that I received this morning—an e-mail which, I have to say, is humbling—a correspondent who dismisses every one of us said of the budget:

"I don't care how you do it neither does the vast majority in the country just get it done".

Does the First Minister agree that the priority is not bloodless coups, debating antics in the chamber or putting parties on a war footing but getting this budget passed?

I agree. We intend to do exactly that, not in the interests of the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, the Green party or the Labour Party, but in the interests of the Scottish people.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1400)

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

Parliament needs a budget bill for private sector jobs and for public services but, more important, the country needs the right budget bill to tackle the economic problems that we face. Yesterday's economic news was truly disturbing: the growth figures for Scotland are worse than those of the United Kingdom; the UK figures were judged by the International Monetary Fund to be the worst in the world; and a global engineering business with an Ayrshire base is to close. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has been commendably blunt and said that Scotland is in recession. Does the First Minister agree with Mr Swinney?

Yes, I agree that Scotland is in recession. The official figures will not be out for three months because of the time lag in declaring them. In any interpretation of the current economic data, it should be remembered that Scottish employment is higher than the UK average, Scottish unemployment is lower, and Scottish activity rates across the population are also higher.

I say to Tavish Scott that, even if we thought that the 2p cut in income tax proposed by the Scottish Liberal Democrats last September was a good idea, there is not a majority for it in the chamber. [Interruption.] I hear members say that that has not been tested, but I have quote after quote from Labour spokesmen attacking it.

In yesterday's debate, Jeremy Purvis said that the Scottish Parliament information centre said that, under the Government's input-output model, such a tax cut would generate 9,200 jobs in Scotland. Yes; but the same model shows that if we reduce public spending by £800 million, we will lose 16,868 jobs, which is a net loss of some 6,000. That cannot be the right measure to take in these difficult times.

This is about jobs in the private sector. We need a long-term plan to rescue us from the economic storm. Alex Salmond leads a minority Government and he has to work across all parties. Is the First Minister prepared, as I am, to sit down, roll up his sleeves, and work with others to build a budget and a long-term economic approach that can create jobs and tackle the economic recession? His economic growth target for 2011 was invented in the boom times. What is his assessment of that target now that we are in the bust?

The target was set relative to the UK economy. The Scottish economy has underlying strengths that will enable us to meet the target. For example, yesterday I had the great pleasure of initiating an £80 million investment by Diageo in a new bioenergy plant at its distillery in Fife. That is exactly the sort of project that combines two of our strongest industries—the food and drink industry with the bioenergy and renewable energy sector. We have strong sectors in the Scottish economy that will enable us to meet the target.

I will meet Tavish Scott this afternoon, and I say to him again that I am perfectly happy to have constructive discussions. However, he cannot have the unbreakable condition of a 2p income tax cut that would not command a majority in the Parliament. As I have just explained, neither would it command the sort of economic response that we would all like, even if it could be implemented in the coming year. So, when we have our constructive discussion, I hope that Tavish Scott will recognise that what the Liberal Democrats have made the key to whether they are prepared to support the budget is not tenable.

I will take a constituency question from Michael McMahon.

I am sure that the First Minister will agree with me that, in the current recession, any redundancies are regrettable. I bring to his attention two particular cases in my constituency that were announced this week.

Just this morning, E.ON announced the closure of its retail service call centre in Tannochside in Uddingston. Will the First Minister assist the various trade unions that are trying to talk to Scottish and Southern Energy, which in Cumbernauld is recruiting people who operate in the same sector? Will he bring his good offices to bear to get E.ON and Scottish and Southern Energy together with the aim of transferring to Cumbernauld the jobs that will be lost at Tannochside?

Is the First Minister aware of the decision by Corus on Monday to close the steel stockholders plant in Mossend with the loss of 78 jobs? That is a particularly difficult issue, because the plant is viable and efficient and is making profit, but it is to be asset stripped, with machinery being taken to a plant in England. Will the First Minister support the campaign of the Community union, which is fighting to save the plant by having it sold as a going concern so that, as happened with a company in Teeside that Corus previously owned, it can go into the market and compete in its own right?

Yes, I will. The announcement of increased resources for PACE—partnership action for continuing employment—is specifically designed to help with interventions in redundancy situations, which, sadly, will become very frequent in the near future.

On the E.ON call centre facility in the member's constituency, I know quite a bit about Scottish and Southern Energy's decision to take over the Barclaycard facility in Cumbernauld, as there was direct ministerial involvement in that. Indeed, I will open the new facility in Cumbernauld. I will raise the point that the member makes but, in any case, we should regard the decision by Scottish and Southern, which saves 800 jobs in Cumbernauld and offers enhanced training opportunities for the valuable and loyal staff there, as a good thing in itself. I will certainly direct the company's attention to the unfortunate developments in the member's constituency.

---

Manufacturing Sector (Recession)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with Scottish Enterprise about the impact of the recession on the manufacturing sector. (S3F-1401)

The Scottish Government has had discussions with Scottish Enterprise on a wide range of issues to do with the manufacturing sector. Recent examples include the strategic forum, which last met on 16 December and which involved cabinet secretaries. The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism regularly meets representatives from the manufacturing sector and business organisations. Scottish Enterprise, in taking account of those discussions, and as part of its contribution to the Government's economic recovery programme, has allocated additional funds to the Scottish manufacturing advisory service, with recruitment now under way to double the number of its advisers.

I am aware that the furnace and foundry products company Vesuvius has announced a period of consultation with a view to closing its manufacturing operation in the member's constituency, which would potentially make 170 employees redundant. Officials have offered support: the partnership action for continuing employment team has been in contact with the company and Scottish Enterprise participated in a meeting with the company earlier this week. I understand that a follow-up meeting is planned in the next few days.

I will take the First Minister's message of support back to the workforce at Vesuvius when I next meet them. He may be aware that manufacturing jobs in Kilmarnock and Loudoun plummeted from almost 6,000 in 1999 to fewer than 4,000 in 2006. When the First Minister next meets the Council of Economic Advisers, will he ask it to carry out further work on how Scotland's manufacturing sector can best be supported through and beyond the recession?

Yes, I will. The Government applauds the work that the Council of Economic Advisers has undertaken so far, particularly its advice on developing Scotland's areas of competitive advantage. We fully accept the recommendation in the council's annual report to the Parliament that we should focus on strengthening the competitive advantage in key sectors. The council is reviewing each of the high-growth sectors in turn so that it can offer advice on how Government policies can be more supportive. Those sectors, and the manufacturing industries within them, will help to lead Scotland out of the downturn and to drive economic recovery.

---

Victims Champion

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will appoint a victims champion. (S3F-1417)

We have invested record levels of funding in front-line services for victims, including £44 million over the period 2008 to 2011 to tackle violence against women, which is double the amount that was available in the previous three years. We are working very closely with victims organisations as we take forward the justice reform programme, but we have no plans at present to appoint a victims commissioner as part of that approach.

On Monday, Westminster appointed child protection guru Sara Payne as the first victims champion for England and Wales. She has been tasked with preparing the ground for the new and innovative victims commissioner post that will be established in 12 months' time. In Scotland, prisoners have their own commissioner, but who is the champion for victims? Will the First Minister support my proposal for a member's bill to create a victims commissioner?

Earlier this month, as David Stewart knows, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice answered a parliamentary question from the member. He said that the review of a "Scottish Strategy for Victims" will include consideration of a range of opportunities for improving support for victims of crime. The need for a victims commissioner might be considered as part of that process. The cabinet secretary is happy to discuss with David Stewart his proposal for a victims commissioner once Mr Stewart has published his promised consultation paper.

I know that David Stewart appreciates that we have a range of victims groups and agencies in Scotland that do vital and valuable work and the Government is closely aligned with their objectives. I have already illustrated the funding increases to support that work.

Does the First Minister nevertheless accept that the primary responsibility for supporting victims lies with the Government at various levels? Does he agree that the Scottish Commission for Human Rights could play a useful role in examining support given to victims and making recommendations, and that a powerful critique of that kind, based on human rights analysis, could make a significant contribution to improving the treatment of victims in the courts and beyond?

That seems to be a fair point; I offer to give it close examination and write to the member. It should be remembered that organisations such as Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid are represented on Government bodies. For example, Victim Support Scotland is represented on the national advisory board on offender management and a witness issues group and is now working with the Sentencing Commission for Scotland. The organisations that do such vital work on behalf of victims are already integrated with and supporting Government and public initiatives in a very close working relationship. Nonetheless, Robert Brown makes a fair point and I will examine it carefully.

---

Schools (Excluded Children)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government supports children who have been excluded from school. (S3F-1402)

The Scottish Government is providing support in several ways. We are promoting more effective approaches to behaviour management through guidance and the work of the positive behaviour team, currently funded at £500,000 a year. Updated guidance, "included, engaged and involved", is being developed that covers the prevention and management of exclusion. I know that Hugh O'Donnell will welcome the overall yearly fall in exclusions as well as reflecting the continuing concern about the level of exclusions in some key categories.

Does the First Minister agree that, through the process that we use to identify exclusions, we label 12 per cent of our children, possibly for their whole lives, and that such labels are given to children who are often the most vulnerable in our society? Will he resolve to ensure that all the local authorities develop a constructive plan to address the issues that such young people face?

Yes, I will. I thank the member for the constructive nature of his question. I was disappointed in some of this week's coverage of the figures, which show a fall in the number of exclusions. It is clear that in certain areas there are still significant problems that nobody would underestimate, but when there is significant overall decline that should be welcomed and, more than that, the initiatives that local authorities have taken to enable that decline to take place should be examined.

It is not good enough for people to say, "We don't believe the statistics", when there are clear working examples of initiatives being taken in which local authorities and schools around Scotland are managing the problem in a constructive way that is leading to good outcomes for schools and pupils alike.

Will the First Minister commit his Government to having a full-scale debate on school discipline in this Parliament?

I will certainly speak to the business manager to see whether such a debate can be arranged. I do not dictate such matters and instead leave it to the Parliamentary Bureau to set the parliamentary agenda, but my personal view is that such a debate would be worth while. There are many key issues to discuss and great interest in the patterns that we are seeing in the figures and, indeed, in the initiatives being taken in schools throughout Scotland.

Is the First Minister aware from this week's figures on school exclusions of the worrying rise in the abuse of alcohol by some pupils? Is he also aware of the rather frightening increase in the number of assaults by pupils with a weapon? What is he doing to tackle those serious problems?

I am aware of that. Of course, any violence in schools is unacceptable. We are all concerned by the rise in the number of children excluded from school because of assaults involving alcohol or substance misuse or assaults with weapons. Those are serious problems. That is why the approach that has been taken in so many schools and councils seems to me to be something that is worth supporting.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the problems that the member has identified, let us be prepared to welcome the substantial overall decrease in the number of exclusions, which, in many cases, can be directly attributed to the constructive and positive work that is going on at council and school levels.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—