Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03284)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
The First Minister was rightly congratulated on securing the fiscal framework deal that protects the long-term future of the Barnett formula for Scotland. Central to the deal is the principle of no detriment. That principle means that the transfer of financial responsibilities to this Parliament should never leave Scotland worse off. Yesterday’s “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures showed that Scotland’s deficit would be twice the size of the United Kingdom’s. Does the First Minister seriously still believe that there would be no detriment to Scotland leaving the United Kingdom?
It is interesting to recall that, in the last year of the previous Labour Government, the United Kingdom’s deficit was £153 billion, which amounted to 10.2 per cent of the UK’s gross domestic product. I maybe just missed Kezia Dugdale telling the then Chancellor of Exchequer, Alistair Darling, that the UK could no longer afford to be an independent country.
The truth of the matter is that countries the world over have deficits. Let us remember this about Scotland’s deficit: it was not created in an independent Scotland; it was created on Westminster’s watch. It is rather strange for any self-respecting politician to argue that we should stick with the system that created the deficit instead of taking more powers into our own hands to do something about it.
Lastly, is it not so typical of Labour that we hear nothing about the strong Scottish economy and its underlying strength? I will leave Labour to do what Labour loves best, which is to knock Scotland; I will get on with the job of building this country up.
Presiding Officer, that was about as convincing as Brian Souter’s tax return. The First Minister is in complete denial.
Hear, hear.
Members: Oh!
Order.
It is just 24 hours since the First Minister’s own figures devastated the case the independence and she wants to carry on as though nothing has happened. The economic case for independence has always been dubious, but even her former adviser, Alex Bell, tells us today that it “is now dead.”
The GERS figures do not just raise constitutional questions; they also give us an insight into the Scottish National Party Government’s spending priorities. Investing in education is fundamental to growing the economy, yet the GERS figures showed that the SNP has cut education and training by 10 per cent since it took office in 2007. If education is the First Minister’s number 1 priority, why has her Government cut the budget by 10 per cent?
Before I come on to education, which I will do in just in second, is it not worth noting that the better together alliance came alive in that previous question? Is it not the case that all we get from Labour is a miserable talking down of Scotland and its prospects? Let us not forget that, in the years when Scotland’s fiscal position was stronger than the UK’s, Labour still criticised the case for independence. The truth of the matter is that Labour prefers Scotland to be run by the Tories than to have Scotland run by this Parliament. For as long as that remains the case, Kezia Dugdale’s party will remain on political life support.
The GERS figures yesterday actually showed an increase of 1.7 per cent in Scottish education spending between 2013-14 and 2014-15. As we have outlined—[Interruption.]
Order.
As we have outlined, our attainment fund, which is over and above core education budgets and was doubled by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy in the budget, will ensure that we do even more to tackle the issues of attainment in our schools.
As I said, I will leave Labour to whinge from the sidelines and knock Scotland. I will get on with building the country up.
The First Minister cannot escape the facts. The figures that I used are hers. She has cut education and training by 10 per cent. I can throw a number at the First Minister and she can throw another one back from the big book of excuses that she has in front of her, but behind all those numbers are people whose lives are being turned upside down by SNP cuts to schools and other vital public services.
Just this week, I spoke with three women who have been directly affected by SNP cuts. One uprooted her whole life to pursue a career in education only now to be told that she will soon be out of a job. Just yesterday, I met a school librarian who was on the verge of tears and begged for my help to save her job. A classroom assistant in Clackmannanshire—the place where the First Minister told me job cuts were exaggerated—told me that she was at a loss to understand the First Minister’s denial of the extent of job losses.
The First Minister says that the figures on education cuts are wrong. Are those three women all wrong as well?
Let me point out the facts to Kezia Dugdale. The average spend per primary pupil has increased by 9 per cent—£411—since the SNP took office. The average spend per secondary school pupil has increased by 11 per cent—£670—since the SNP took office. The average spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools is higher in Scotland than it is in England.
That is the SNP Government’s record, but we are determined to build on that record. That is why we have prioritised education and tackling educational attainment. It is why the finance secretary doubled the funding for attainment in the budget just two weeks ago.
When I speak to people across Scotland, as I do day in and day out, they ask me why, if Labour is sincere about its commitment to education, it voted just two weeks ago against a budget that maintained teacher numbers and doubled the fund for attainment in our schools. That is the question to which people across Scotland want to know the answer.
We voted against a budget that ripped £500 million out of our schools and vital public services. The reality is that we could not believe the First Minister’s figures in 2014 and we cannot believe them today, because people are losing their jobs and the staff who remain face even greater pressure. Our young people will lose out because of the Government’s cuts to education.
For years, the First Minister said that independence was the only way to stop the cuts, but that argument is now dead. Labour has set out a plan to use the powers of the Parliament to stop the cuts but, on the 50p tax, the higher rate threshold and the 1p plan, she has voted it down at each and every turn. If GERS has confirmed that independence is not the answer and the First Minister refuses to use the powers of the Parliament to end austerity, what exactly will she do to stop the cuts?
Actually, if we think back—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
If we think back to the referendum, Kezia Dugdale and her colleagues said to people throughout Scotland that they had to vote no to avoid cuts. Now, they go around Scotland telling ordinary people that their taxes have to go up to pay for the Tory cuts that Labour made us stay subject to. That is the sheer and utter disgrace of the Scottish Labour Party. To add to that disgrace, two weeks ago, Labour voted against a budget that maintained teacher numbers, doubled funding for attainment in schools, and delivered the living wage to social care workers across our country.
Apparently a vote Labour event was held in Edinburgh last night. Kezia Dugdale should read the reports about it because, apparently, her name was not mentioned once in three hours, although speaker after speaker lined up to praise the SNP. If Kezia Dugdale cannot even enthuse her own side of the argument, is it any wonder that she has already resigned herself to coming second in the election in May?
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-03286)
I have no immediate plans to do so.
The SNP’s line on “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” and oil seems to be that everyone got it wrong and no one saw it coming. That is total rubbish. Almost two years ago to the day, I stood here and told the First Minister’s predecessor that he was being wildly optimistic about future oil revenues. We knew then that the Office for Budget Responsibility had put oil revenues for the coming year at £3 billion. The SNP refuses to listen and tried to con people in the referendum campaign by claiming that the revenues would be up to £8 billion. The then First Minister told me, with some indignation, that his figures were “robust”. Not surprisingly, nobody trusts the First Minister’s predecessor on that any more.
However, it was not just Alex Salmond; the First Minister led the independence campaign, so why should people trust her on this?
Perhaps Ruth Davidson should have tried to give some of that wisdom to the United Kingdom Government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change, because its projection for oil prices was higher than the Scottish Government’s.
Is not it typical that we have a Tory Government that wants, just like its pals in the Labour Party, constantly to talk down Scotland’s prospects? Let me tell Ruth Davidson what the figures that were published yesterday show. There has in the past five years been £3,000 more revenue per head generated in Scotland than per head in the UK, growth in onshore revenues is outstripping the fallen oil revenues, and there is higher employment and faster productivity growth in Scotland than there is in the rest of the UK. We will not hear any of that from the better together Tory-Labour alliance because that might mean talking Scotland up, and that would never, ever do.
The truth is that there is a £15 billion black hole and a leader who told us that we would all be £500 better off if we voted for independence. It is a great pity that the First Minister is still tied to the Salmond playbook of bluster and baseless assertion. The truth is that the SNP’s economic prospectus for independence is broken. It was broken when the SNP made it—they knew it then and they know it now. The SNP’s discredited white paper will live on as a black spot on this First Minister’s reputation.
I would like to quote once more the SNP’s former chief adviser, Alex Bell—[Interruption.]
Order.
He said:
“we must assume these bright people know that the old model, once optimistic, is now dead.”
He is right, is he not?
Let me also quote someone who spoke during the referendum campaign—this quotation is more relevant. Much to my regret, Scotland did not vote yes; Scotland voted no. In that campaign, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that there would be a “£200 billion oil boom” if Scotland voted no. Why did David Cameron say that and why did he turn out to be wrong? We will take no bluff and bluster from the Conservative Party.
The fact of the matter is that Ruth Davidson is the leader in Scotland of a party that has stripped billions of pounds out of Scotland’s budget. The parties that told Scotland that it had to vote no in order to avoid cuts are the parties that are now imposing cuts. Given that Westminster has created the Scottish deficit, why on earth would we stay part of that system instead of taking power into our own hands to do something about it?
Last month, Mr Kausar Uddin, who is a resident of the Broomhouse area in my constituency, was on pilgrimage to Mecca with his wife and three children. During the final prayer of the day, there was a surge in the crowd, and Mr Uddin tripped and grabbed hold of the nearest person for balance. Unfortunately, that person turned out to be a police officer, and Mr Uddin was arrested for assault. He was sentenced to 35 days in prison, and there is concern that he may be subjected to another trial that could result in a far longer sentence. Given that people who are on holy pilgrimage with their families do not travel with the intention of assaulting anyone, is there any way that the First Minister can intervene to assist my constituent?
I am very concerned to hear about Mr Uddin’s situation. Very large numbers of my constituents go on pilgrimage to Mecca every single year, so I understand the concerns that have been raised by the case.
My officials have already been in contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and it has advised that the British embassy is now in touch with Mr Uddin by phone and that it has requested a prison visit via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The FCO has also advised us that, at this stage, it has not had Mr Uddin’s sentence confirmed, as the case appears to be still under investigation.
We have asked to be kept updated and informed of progress. I undertake to provide Gordon MacDonald with further updates, as appropriate.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-03285)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
Let us examine the consequences of the First Minister’s massive economic misjudgment on the finances of an independent Scotland. [Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Mr Rennie.
The First Minister says that the figures are only one year’s figures, but we all know that the worst is yet to come. The £15 billion shortfall is twice the education budget and three times the European deficit limit. The First Minister would need growth figures five times higher than China’s to get out of the hole.
The First Minister was warned repeatedly about her claims. Can she look me in the eye and say that she really believed what she said then? Or is it worse: is her economic judgment really that bad?
“Massive economic misjudgment”. That is a very apt description of the judgment of a party that went into coalition with the Tories and kept David Cameron and George Osborne in government for five long years. Let us never forgot that that party was the Liberal Democrats. It is interesting that, until now, Willie Rennie has not looked me in the eye when I have reminded him of his coalition with the Tories.
Week after week, Willie Rennie’s hypocrisy gets ever more breathtaking. While his party was propping up George Osborne and David Cameron in government, those politicians were ripping billions of pounds out of the Scottish budget. I will take no lectures on cuts from a Liberal Democrat, and I would bet that the Scottish people cannot wait to pass judgment yet again on the Liberal Democrats on 5 May.
I noticed that the Deputy First Minister leaned over to give the First Minister a bit of advice on that last same tired old answer. It is a shame that she did not listen to him before. We all remember the secret dossier, which happened to be right. The finance secretary was right all along. Why did the First Minister not listen to him back then?
The First Minister now spends all her time dismissing all the things that John Swinney warned about. She dismisses the drop in oil revenues and claims that a £15 billion financial hole does not really matter. She supports independence no matter what the price. No fact or number will ever change her mind. However, £15 billion is twice the education budget. Is not it the case that the First Minister was ready to put independence before the education of our children?
We did not need a secret dossier to see the implications of the Liberal Democrats’ misjudgment, because we saw that unfold in George Osborne’s budget every year for the five years in which Willie Rennie’s party kept the Tories in government. Billions of pounds were taken out of this Government’s budget by Tories who were being kept in office by the Liberal Democrats.
Willie Rennie has the nerve to stand here and talk about education and health, and cuts in anybody’s budgets. The fact of the matter is that we are living with the implications of Willie Rennie’s party’s decisions in government, which is why I suspect that his already very small and rather pathetic band of MSPs will be even smaller after 5 May.
Domestic Abuse Victims (Rehousing)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that the rehousing provisions for victims of domestic abuse are satisfactory. (S4F-03287)
Tackling domestic abuse is a priority for me and for this Government, and we are investing record levels of funding. This year alone, we are committed to spending more than £17 million to tackle violence against women and girls.
Current homelessness legislation means that women and children fleeing abuse can be supported into temporary accommodation, and it enables appropriate settled accommodation to be found. Under long-established laws, women can also apply for an exclusion order from a court, which suspends the right of the abuser to live in the family home.
However, as I said when I spoke at Scottish Women’s Aid’s conference on Tuesday this week, more needs to be done in that area. That is why the Minister for Housing and Welfare has offered to meet Scottish Women’s Aid to discuss what further support is required.
I welcome the fact that that meeting will take place, and acknowledge not only the legislation but the funding from the Government to address abusive behaviour and its aftermath.
However, the First Minister will be aware of the recent findings of the women’s health improvement research project in Fife. The majority of the women taking part felt that they were given no choice about losing their home when ending an abusive relationship. I ask specifically what is the Scottish Government’s response to Scottish Women’s Aid’s call for a national strategy to address that issue, because surely it is abundantly clear that women should not be twice abused and victims?
I absolutely agree. I am hugely sympathetic to Scottish Women’s Aid’s call for a national strategy. That is one of the things that the housing minister will discuss in the meeting that I referred to.
We have strong homelessness legislation in place—it has been described as some of the most progressive in the world. All homeless people have the right to temporary accommodation immediately and, if unintentionally homeless, to settled accommodation. That provides women with protection when they have to leave their home due to domestic abuse.
However, I understand and sympathise hugely with the notion that forcing an abused woman to leave the family home instead of staying there compounds the sense of injustice and abuse. This is a hugely important issue and one that, with our partners and stakeholders in Scottish Women’s Aid and other organisations, we are absolutely determined to do more to tackle.
The Government has recently consulted on the introduction of a specific offence of domestic abuse. Does the First Minister agree that it should include provision to protect women by placing conditions on perpetrators, including the removal of offenders from households? That would be similar, for example, to domestic violence protection orders in England.
I am happy to consider that. As the member knows, we are in the latter stages of the consultation; and we are looking at the specific wording of a new offence. I think that what she just mentioned might be more to do with the disposals in courts than with the specific wording of the offence, but I am happy to look at that.
Of course, the key purpose of the consultation and of the proposed specific offence is to deal with examples of abuse—coercive and controlling behaviour—that the current law does not deal with adequately. That is the motivation behind the consultation.
However, the point that the member makes raises important issues about what happens to a woman who is trying to escape abuse, and I will certainly give serious consideration to it.
Exclusion orders are helpful, but often the abuser takes no notice of them and breaches them. Safe housing is therefore crucial. What work has been carried out on creating refuge rooms and panic buttons in a victim’s home to ensure that they can get the help that they need if an abuser breaches an exclusion order?
A whole range of work is carried out on that kind of issue, often by organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid. I am more than happy to provide more detailed information about exactly what the range of Scottish Government funding supports in that respect.
On the key issue here, I am absolutely in agreement with the member. Of course there will be circumstances in which a woman who has been a victim of abuse will want to leave and move away to start afresh without the influence of their abuser. However, wherever possible, it is the abuser whose life should be turned upside down by the abuse, not that of the victim of the abuse. That is what we should be working towards in every possible circumstance.
This issue—not just the specific issue that we are talking about today but the general issue of tackling violence against women and children—is one of the most important that this Parliament and this society can deal with. Earlier this week we celebrated international women’s day, and all of us did our own things to mark that. We must recognise that domestic abuse and violence against women is both a cause and a symptom of gender inequality and that until we tackle that and eradicate violence against women, we will not have true gender equality in this country.
Ferry Services
To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the RMT-commissioned report on the future of Scottish ferry services. (S4F-03293)
We are committed to providing the best possible ferry services, and the announcement of a total freeze on fares for the Clyde and Hebrides services for 2016-17 and the £100 million order of two new vessels for the network underline that commitment. We remain focused on ensuring a fair procurement process that leads to the best deal for all the communities of the Clyde and the Hebrides. It is important to say that, no matter the outcome of that process, Scottish ministers will retain control of all important issues, such as fares and timetables, because it will always be a public service contract. Vessels and port infrastructure will also remain publicly owned, as they are now.
The law requires us to undertake a tendering process, a position that we inherited from the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration. That position was accepted by that Administration when it initiated the first tendering exercise for the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services.
Is the First Minister aware that the United Kingdom Government banned Serco from tendering following an electronic tagging contract under which it claimed payments for prisoners who had died? Even at this 11th hour, will the First Minister agree to meet the author of the report concerned, Jeanette Findlay, a respected economist from the University of Glasgow? Finally, does the First Minister share my view that Caledonian MacBrayne is part of the DNA of the west coast and the islands and that if it loses the contract in May there will be no one to fly the banner for public ferry services in the future?
I want to make sure that we have the best ferry services. For reasons that I hope every member across the chamber will understand, I will not comment directly on the tender process that is under way. I will say, though—I will be corrected if I am wrong on this—that I am pretty sure that the ban on Serco that the member referred to has since been lifted by the UK Government.
We are required under European Union law to put the service out to tender. In September 2005, before the first tendering exercise, a motion was passed in this chamber that acknowledged that
“the tendering of the Clyde and Hebrides lifeline ferry services is required to protect these vital services.”
That motion was supported by Jackie Baillie, Sarah Boyack, Malcolm Chisholm, Patricia Ferguson, Hugh Henry, Johann Lamont, Lewis Macdonald, Ken Macintosh, Michael McMahon, Duncan McNeil and Elaine Murray. That was the position of the last Labour Administration and it is the position of this Administration, but it is all intended to make sure that we get the very best services for the people who rely on what are, after all, lifeline services.
Visitor Attractions (Visitor Numbers)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to figures from the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions that show a 5.5 per cent increase in visitor numbers at attractions in Scotland in 2015. (S4F-03295)
I am delighted at the latest figures from the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, which show that Edinburgh castle is the most visited attraction in Scotland and that the National Museum of Scotland is the most visited free attraction in Scotland. The latest official statistics show that, if we combine overseas and domestic visitors, there was a 7 per cent increase in total tourism visits to Scotland in the year to September 2015, and that combined visitor spend increased by 18.8 per cent between 2010 and 2014. I think that that is testament to the hard work and skills of everyone in our tourism and hospitality industry in Scotland and to our public bodies, which are working in partnership to support the Scottish Tourism Alliance and the industry-led tourism Scotland 2020 strategy.
I am pleased to note that one of the leading attractions was Falkland palace in my constituency.
I am sure that the First Minister will agree that it is important to consider how tourism can grow. One such way is to improve accessibility. We have in Fife an accessible Fife project. What support can the Scottish Government provide for such initiatives to improve disabled access to Scottish visitor attractions and to increase the numbers of tourists generally?
I absolutely agree that we need to grow and support accessible tourism, not only because it helps us to tap into a market that is worth potentially £1.5 billion to our economy but because it is the right thing to do. The Scottish Government has provided VisitScotland with a funding contribution to develop a guide to help boost the wider accessibility of events. At the industry launch of the 2016 year of innovation, architecture and design, the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism announced additional funding to support a series of new partner projects. Each of those initiatives will contribute to the wider accessible tourism drive. It is important that that happens for both the inclusivity of what Scotland has to offer and the economic benefit that it will bring.
Previous
General Question Time