Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, April 22, 2010

Official Report 1132KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2339)

I have a variety of engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Nine months ago, Labour forced the First Minister into a legally binding target to reduce carbon emissions by 42 per cent by 2020. How does the First Minister plan to achieve that?

As Iain Gray should know, we plan to achieve that through a range of measures that give a parliamentary commitment and ensure governmental action.

I know that Iain Gray is loth to praise the Government, but even he will have to acknowledge that the drive towards those ambitious targets in Scotland is proceeding at a somewhat faster pace than is being managed by his colleagues south of the border.

It is exactly the pace at which we are proceeding towards those targets that I want to raise. Yesterday, the First Minister published his target for carbon emissions reductions for this year. The target says that he intends to reduce emissions by one five hundredth of a per cent. That is so small that it appears in the tables as zero. However, in 2013, the target suddenly jumps to 9 per cent in a year. How does the First Minister think that that quantum leap is going to happen? Is the answer simply that he does not care, because he knows that it will not be his problem by 2013?

Election campaigns are times for wishful thinking, and Iain Gray has just given us an example of that.

As Iain Gray knows, the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government are advised by the same committee. In the short-term proposals that we have outlined, we have gone beyond that advice to make that start to the ambitious targets.

Iain Gray asks why the targets jump in a few years’ time. That is because many of the great investments that are being made in, for example, renewable energy, come on stream in a few years’ time.

This Government has approved nearly 30 renewables projects, which is nearly double the rate of the previous Administration. However, not even this Government can make those projects have instantaneous production. It takes a few years for them to come into production. When they do, we will go a substantial way towards achieving our targets.

I say to Iain Gray, “For goodness’ sake, do not break the parliamentary consensus behind the targets, which was so impressive internationally. Get behind the Government, get behind the Parliament and let us together ensure that Scotland leads the world in green energy.”

If the First Minister had the slightest idea about the detail of the policy that he is talking about, he would know that those renewable energy improvements will not kick in immediately. Indeed, they will not kick in until after 2020, largely. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but here is the First Minister’s policy—perhaps he should read it. The reason why there is a jump in the target for 2013 is not based on any of the things that the First Minister talked about; it is based on a piece of wishful thinking. It is solely based on phase 3 of the European emissions trading scheme. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but if the First Minister does not know his own policy, he is going to have to have it explained to him.

Here is the cunning plan. [Interruption.]

Order.

Here is the First Minister’s cunning plan. This Scottish Government is basically going to do nothing to cut emissions and the next Government will depend on a hypothetical scheme, which might be agreed, if we are lucky.

Is that not all just Salmond-speak for “I haven't got a clue, but we’ll cross our fingers and hope something turns up later”?

I do not think that Iain Gray has a cunning plan at all. I do not think that he can even articulate the question, never mind understand the answer.

I have already tried to explain to Iain Gray the massive investment in renewable energy. More than 3GW of renewable energy capacity has been sanctioned by this Government. Scotland uses 6GW in a normal day. It seems to me, therefore, that the new capacity will make a substantial difference to the production of renewable energy in Scotland.

I point out to Iain Gray that we are not going to wait until 2020 to see those major investments come to fruition; they are coming to fruition now, and that will increase year by year to help us to achieve our targets.

Of course, we are not only relying on the major investments in renewable energy. What about the home insulation scheme, which makes a contribution? What about John Swinney’s announcement on sustainable transport in the past few days? Has Iain Gray been so busy reading Andy Kerr’s misleading press releases that he has not had time to look at the facts that show a Government in action?

If the Government is doing so much, why is its carbon emissions reduction target for this year zero? The First Minister loves to boast about the world-beating climate change legislation. He flew all the way to Copenhagen to tell the world about it. He is going to the Maldives to tell people there not to worry, because Alex Salmond is on the case. They will not be too impressed when he tells them that his target for reductions this year is precisely nothing. However, we should not be surprised, because Alex Salmond believes that he introduced free personal care in the Parliament and that he is going to win 20 seats in the general election. I do not doubt that he can leap tall buildings in a single bound, but even Alex Salmond cannot believe that he will cut carbon emissions by 42 per cent with this plan. Will he just take it away and bring back something serious?

Where will I start? I have such a variety of options to choose from. I remember Iain Gray being confident about the results of the European elections in Scotland. I remind him that the Scottish National Party won those elections not only throughout the country, but even in his constituency. Furthermore, I know that this is parliamentary knockabout, but he should content himself with the thought that whatever I have to say about him in the next few seconds is as nothing compared with what Anne Moffat has said about him in the past few weeks.

On that great semblance of unity in the Labour Party in taking things forward, I noticed the comments of Bob Thomson, the former chair and treasurer of the Labour Party, in speaking about the party’s prospects in the election that Iain Gray mentioned. Bob Thomson said:

“After 15 years of New Labour, what have we achieved? We have the biggest deficit in history. Our manufacturing base has been destroyed.

People say Gordon Brown saved the banking system, but that’s like thanking an arsonist for putting out the fire he started. From any objective standard, he’s been a disaster.”

Iain Gray has been a disaster as well.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2340)

I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future. Actually, that is not true—I think that I am meeting him in a debate this coming Sunday.

John Swinney announced last week that the Barnett consequential for social housing will produce an extra £31 million for the Scottish Government to spend. Yesterday, Homes for Scotland said that Scotland

“is facing its worst housing crisis since the Second World War”,

and that housing development

“is touching an all-time low”.

Will that £31 million have a significant effect on the Scottish house building industry? How many houses will the money build?

As Annabel Goldie should know, as a result of our initiatives on social rented housing, we are now building a record number of social rented houses in Scotland. That has mobilised not only consequential funds, but European Investment Bank funds and funds from housing associations. The social rented sector has been performing at an exceptional rate in the past two years. However, the construction industry has of course faced the consequences of the decline in private sector house building. Although the investment in social rented housing has been extremely important and valuable and has been widely welcomed not just by housing associations, but by the construction sector, that investment cannot in itself compensate for the decline in private sector house building, which has been notable.

One thing that Annabel Goldie will not necessarily agree with—although many members and others welcome it—is that, thanks to the efforts of the Government in the past two years, we have had the first council house building in Scotland for many years.

 

 

 

 

Not for the first time, the question that I asked was not answered. I will do that for the First Minister. I estimate that £31 million could build nearly 400 houses, which is welcome. Why is the Scottish Government completely undermining that benefit by robbing the housing budget of an estimated £100 million—almost 1,300 houses—because of Alex Salmond’s dogmatic insistence on abolishing the right to buy? First, we had the Liberal Democrats hitting new-build houses with a £14,000 tax bill. Now we have Alex Salmond, with his SNP cut, clobbering the Scottish house building industry and shattering the hopes of many families across Scotland. How can he justify that cut of £100 million to the Scottish housing budget?

I point out to Annabel Goldie that 7,000 social rented houses are being built in Scotland thanks to the Government’s actions. I know that she does not want to hark back to the previous period of Tory Government, but it is generally accepted that the housing crisis in Scotland had its genesis in the complete collapse in public sector house building during that Conservative Government’s term.

The changes in the right to buy to which Annabel Goldie refers have been widely welcomed across the housing sector in Scotland. Two thousand council houses are planned or are being built at present, in comparison with the total of six—that is right—all in Shetland, that were planned under the previous Administration. Does she seriously think that those 2,000 houses, which will provide homes for families across Scotland, could have been started, never mind completed, if we had left in place the right to buy? It was clear and obvious that councils across Scotland would not build houses if those would immediately be taken off the council house register. There is much to welcome in the Government’s initiatives to provide 7,000 social rented houses and to restart the council house building programme. Those initiatives are fair to the whole community of Scotland.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2341)

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

The advisory board to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning is meeting this morning to consider whether the introduction of widespread and fundamental changes to the curriculum and exams in Scotland should begin at the start of the new school year, in August. Parents, children and schools across Scotland need to know one way or the other when the curriculum for excellence will start. Is the Government intending this afternoon to make a statement to Parliament on its decision?

The curriculum for excellence has been introduced in primary schools in Scotland for a considerable time; of debate have been the terms of its introduction in the secondary sector. As Tavish Scott should know, the management board met this morning and will provide us with a report this afternoon. He also knows that the Government has indicated that we pay close attention to and take the advice of the board, which consists of a representative group from across Scotland. When its advice comes forward, we will ensure that members know about that and about the Government’s intentions.

The Government is deeply committed to the curriculum for excellence, which we want to go ahead. I have a range of quotes from representative interest groups across Scotland urging the Government to get on with the curriculum for excellence and to ensure that we restore the excellence of the Scottish education system.

We have been told that the Government will simply issue a press release at 3 o’clock this afternoon. Surely Parliament should have the opportunity to question the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. Will the First Minister ensure that that happens?

Is the First Minister as concerned as every Scottish parent is at the talk today from teaching unions of potential strikes and working to rule? Parents can understand teachers’ frustration about the lack of information, training and clarity and the inadequate resources that have been provided to schools; all those issues must be sorted out before the go-ahead for August can be given. Will the First Minister cut through the institutional mess of the different roles of Learning and Teaching Scotland, the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the Government, and guarantee that all those bodies will work together with schools to iron out the problems?

A Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association survey shows that 86 per cent of secondary teachers are not confident that they can deliver the change in August. How will the Government respond to the views of Scotland’s headteachers?

The management board manages—that is what it does. It gathers together all the interest groups in Scottish education so that we can pilot through the curriculum for excellence.

I am puzzled by Tavish Scott’s request for a statement this afternoon. Should his Liberal Democrat representative not have taken the matter to the Parliamentary Bureau and asked for a statement? I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will inform members as soon as possible of any advice from the management board this afternoon.

On the Government’s approach of bringing people along with us in introducing such a vital change, which I know many members across the chamber support, it would have been fair-minded of Tavish Scott to have mentioned the 10-point plan that the cabinet secretary announced to help further with the introduction of the curriculum for excellence. Tavish Scott will, of course, be aware that that plan was announced after the SSTA survey that he mentioned. It is only fair and reasonable to take account of the initiatives that have been taken, which have been widely welcomed by many people in the education sector in Scotland. For example, the general secretary of School Leaders Scotland, Ken Cunningham, said in The Herald of 31 March:

“The announcement is exactly the kind of positive reassurance that teachers, pupils and parents need to hear. We have a first-rate teacher workforce in Scotland. Let’s celebrate that and let’s continue to give them the tools to do the job.”

I know that the Opposition has a right and a duty to probe in questions, but Tavish Scott should be fair-minded and accept that many people throughout Scotland take the view that Ken Cunningham has expressed on bringing together the interest groups and the management board and, with the appropriate resources and back-up, ensuring that a vital reform in the Scottish education system can be properly piloted through.

---

Budget Projections

To ask the First Minister, in light of the announcement by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body that the Parliament is seeking to reduce its budget by up to 15 per cent by 2013-14, what projections the Scottish Government has made in relation to its budget over the next decade. (S3F-2350)

As John Swinney said in last week’s debate on the economic recovery plan, we have commissioned an analysis of current plans for United Kingdom expenditure over the coming years and their implications for Scotland. Obviously, that work has been conducted to inform the work of the independent budget commission, and I will ensure that a copy of the report is placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre for Nigel Don and other members.

Based on the chancellor’s most recent budget statement, in broad terms, the analysis shows potential real-term reductions in Scottish Government expenditure of 3 per cent per annum between 2011-12 and 2014-15. Projecting further forward, the analysis forecasts a period of up to 12 to 15 years before 2009-10 levels of expenditure are reached again. That represents a cumulative loss of between £22 billion to £35 billion of public spending over that period, depending on what assumptions are made in the forecast.

I am probably not the only member who finds those figures somewhat chilling. Will the First Minister expand on the Scottish Government’s thoughts on how those substantial cuts, which, as we are well aware, result from mismanagement down south and the biggest deficit in history, will be accommodated in the Scottish budget so that we protect front-line public services as far as possible?

The civil service in Scotland produced that analysis. Obviously, the analysis takes the budget and projects it forward, based on what we know about the current Government’s assumptions in London. The civil service does not criticise or endorse in any way; rather, it has tried to give context to the independent budget review. However, Nigel Don is right to describe the figures as chilling.

I will say two things. First, the forecasts are extremely sensitive to economic growth. We should consider the experience of the past few months and, indeed, this morning, when it was announced quite quietly but nonetheless significantly that there was a further improvement of £4 billion in the UK’s public finances because growth has been faster and unemployment has been lower than was forecast even a few weeks ago in the budget. Some £6 billion here and there has been argued about in the election debate. Experience should indicate to many people that economic growth is the most sensitive aspect of a forecast. Perhaps we should concentrate a bit more on how to secure economic growth, instead of the other matters that have preoccupied the election debate.

 

 

Secondly, in a context in which, even with enhanced growth, public spending will be at a premium, many people—including those who hitherto might have taken a different attitude—will now concentrate their minds on the question whether spending more than £100 billion of vital public money over the next generation on a cold war system of mass destruction and Trident missiles can be justified when health, education and other vital budgets will be under pressure.

The independent budget review group has said that no budget line in the Scottish budget should be ring fenced going forward. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy told the Finance Committee on Tuesday that, given a 15 per cent reduction in the overall Scottish budget, if health and wellbeing expenditure were ring fenced, disproportionate reductions of 25 per cent would have to be made elsewhere. As the Government is now asking civil servants to do modelling of the future Scottish budget, have civil servants been asked to exclude any reductions in the health and wellbeing budget lines?

No, but one of the sensitivity analyses takes us to the lower point of what are admittedly huge totals of £22 billion to £35 billion with the assumption that front-line services would be protected and therefore that, under the Barnett formula, consequentials would be allocated to Scotland. Whatever the Liberal Democrats’ proposition is in this economic debate, this Government will continue as far as possible to protect front-line services as we have done to date.

I, too, am interested in whether the Scottish Government is modelling. Based on the admission of all three parties that are likely to be in the next Government that there will be reductions in services, there will be big effects on the employment scene. Edinburgh is the financial, governmental and administrative centre and will inevitably face big unemployment. Will the First Minister assure me that modelling on future unemployment trends is being done for Edinburgh and its travel-to-work area?

I repeat my point that I am talking about a civil service analysis that is based not on endorsing or criticising the policies that can be interpreted from the UK budget, but on what would happen if such policies were carried forward in a range of scenarios. In doing that and in having the independent budget review group, we are far in advance of anything else that is being done throughout these islands—

Thanks to us.

Mr McLetchie is claiming the credit. Obviously, his foresight does not extend to his colleagues south of the border, where the parameters of the Tories’ vision seem to extend to two-year periods. In addition to the threatened cuts to Scottish public spending, they want to have a specific Tory Cameron cut that would make those figures even worse.

The parameters of the civil servants’ forecast are to inform members, the public and, in particular, the independent budget review group about the potential seriousness of the situation that we face. As the political debate continues, it will be up to Margo MacDonald and me to articulate that there is a course, both for public spending and for the future of this nation, that is different from the rather dismal prospect on offer from Westminster.

Almost a year ago, on 30 April 2009, the First Minister and all his SNP colleagues voted for an amendment in my name that called on the Scottish Government to prepare contingency plans in light of a potential reduction of £3.8 billion in the Scottish departmental budget. Is he now telling us that nothing happened until after this year’s budget?

No. I am saying that we are far in advance in looking at the parameters. However, I say to Derek Brownlee, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect—[Laughter.]

Order.

Without meaning to do any long-term harm to the young man’s career, I say that I have enormous respect for him within the parameters of political opposition—I hope that that helps him in the Official Report.

 

These forecasts are important because they have been done in an objective way. My interpretation of the high end of the forecasts is that they would affect some of the policies that Derek Brownlee’s colleagues in London intend to pursue. Therefore, perhaps he could use his good offices to explain to them that there might be more important items than £100 billion Trident missile systems. It would be inadvisable for the Conservative party to propose a specific Scottish cut in spending, particularly at a time when, under any forecast, it will be hugely reliant on the vast resources from Scottish oil and gas.

---

Rape Conviction Rate

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to address Scotland’s low rape conviction rate. (S3F-2348)

Rape is a horrific crime. Police and prosecutors are committed to investigating all allegations of rape thoroughly and sensitively and, when it is appropriate to do so, prosecuting such cases professionally and effectively.

In June 2006, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service completed a review of the investigation and prosecution of rape and other serious sexual offences. The review resulted in 50 recommendations, which were implemented in full by the summer of last year, when the Crown Office established a new national sexual crimes unit led by a dedicated team of specialist Crown counsel who direct criminal investigations from the earliest stages and provide advice and expertise to procurators fiscal.

The Scottish Government has also acted to modernise and strengthen the law in this area. The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, which will come into effect later this year, provides a clear, modern framework for Scots law on sexual offences, replacing the confused patchwork of common law and statute with a single statutory framework.

The Government is also working with a range of agencies, including Rape Crisis Scotland, to improve the justice system’s response to the crime of rape.

I thank the First Minister for that reply. I am sure that he will acknowledge the grave concern that conviction rates for rape are at their lowest level since 1984. Rape Crisis Scotland tells us that there is no reduction in the level of demand from women seeking its help.

Is the First Minister aware that Rape Crisis tells us that seven out of 10 women can now expect their sexual or medical history to be introduced in evidence in rape cases? That could have an impact on conviction rates and will certainly have an impact on the confidence of women victims to report the crime at all.

Will the First Minister ask the Scottish Law Commission to examine how the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 is being interpreted, given that the consequence seems to be the opposite of the intention? Will he indicate how he will explore the possibility of affording women victims of rape representation of their own in court, given that, currently, it seems that their character can be attacked and they are unable to defend themselves?

I am sure that Johann Lamont will be the first to acknowledge that substantial funds—more than £44 million—have been allocated between 2008 and 2011 to tackle violence against women and that almost £4 million has been allocated to rape support services. That is vital and valuable expenditure.

It will be some time before we can evaluate whether the two major changes that I indicated in my first answer to Johann Lamont, which I tried to make as comprehensive as possible, are making a difference. The 50 recommendations were implemented in full only in the summer of last year and, of course, the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 has not yet come into force. It would be reasonable to look at those matters to see whether they bring about a vital improvement in a situation that we find unacceptable at present.

We will consider the further suggestions that Johann Lamont has made today, and I will ensure that they are passed on to the Lord Advocate.

Perhaps Johann Lamont will reflect in particular on the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has asked the Scottish Law Commission to look at the law of evidence in relation to the Moorov doctrine on factually based evidence. Reform of those rules might assist prosecutors in pursuing repeat offenders in circumstances in which there is limited corroboration, which has been one of the great difficulties in the prosecution of sexual offences.

I hope that Johann Lamont will acknowledge that this Government, and indeed Opposition parties throughout the chamber, share the concern and the agenda of acting to change what we see as an unacceptable position.

 

---

Youth Unemployment

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle youth unemployment. (S3F-2344)

Action by the Government is ensuring that all young Scots have training and support. We have delivered more than 20,000 modern apprenticeships and have supported 7,500 additional university places and more than 4,000 additional college places. As Murdo Fraser knows, we are rolling out the 16+ learning choices programme, with a guaranteed offer of a place in post-16 learning or training for every young person in Scotland. As a result, although youth unemployment is much higher than anyone would wish, the labour market figures that were released yesterday show that the International Labour Organization unemployment rate for 18 to 24-year-olds in Scotland was 13.5 per cent. That is high, but it is lower than the UK average of 17.1 per cent. However, Scotland also has a higher youth employment rate of 62.6 per cent compared with the UK rate of 57.2 per cent.

We learned this week that youth unemployment in Scotland has increased by 89 per cent in two years as a result of Labour’s recession. Does the First Minister agree that, although the first priority must be to help youngsters to find employment, we need to help those who cannot do that, with structured volunteering programmes to keep them active and contributing to society? Will he therefore support the Conservatives’ plans for a national citizens service to help our young people become active and responsible members of society?

We will consider any positive ideas that could help young people in Scotland, regardless of the source, but we would want initiatives that were suggested for Scotland to be backed up by budget lines to bring them into being. Otherwise, we would be faced with the prospect of having to remove funding from many of the excellent volunteering courses and programmes that are taking place at present throughout Scotland. I am sure that no one, least of all Murdo Fraser, would like that.

It is important that we recognise, first, that the youth unemployment rates are far too high, but, secondly, that a great deal has been done, particularly in the apprenticeships programme, to ensure that as many young people as possible get a start in a career. Although I am very interested in volunteering and I believe that it can bring about badly needed and much-to-be-welcomed skills, I am sure that Murdo Fraser will acknowledge that there is no substitute for an economy that provides life opportunities in work for the young people of Scotland and elsewhere.

12:32 Meeting suspended until 14:15.

 

14:15 On resuming—