Just as I was putting the finishing touches to this speech over lunch, so much happened.
Indeed, there appears to be rather more excitement in the lobby and, in particular, on the Scottish National Party benches over the Scottish cabinet reshuffle than over this legislative programme, which is entirely understandable.
However, although I welcome Nicola Sturgeon to her new role at infrastructure and capital investment, that central move of the reshuffle reflects what is at the heart of the legislative programme that was announced yesterday—at the end of the day for the SNP, breaking up the United Kingdom is the be-all and end-all.
Nicola Sturgeon has quit the health brief so that she can spend more time on debating independence, although I can tell her that the infrastructure and capital investment brief is not only time consuming, it is crucial.
I would like to say how sorry I am to see Mr Neil move on from infrastructure and capital investment to his new role, but we all know that that would be stretching the bounds of credibility—something that Mr Neil does all too often. Actually, I do wish him well.
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): No, you do not.
Richard Baker: No, I do not.
Mr Neil’s performance in his former brief also speaks of where this legislative programme fails. Although we will look forward with interest to the sustainable procurement bill, the fact is that in that key area of policy the Scottish Government’s underperformance has been damaging to our economy and to key sectors, including the construction industry.
When it comes to the key issue of the economy, too often we have had warm words and not the action required from the Scottish Government.
Yesterday, the First Minister talked again about shovel-ready projects, but his Government has delayed a host of key infrastructure projects at a time when our construction sector is crying out for work.
Mark McDonald (North East Scotland) (SNP): Over the summer, I wrote to Mr Baker to ask whether, as Labour‟s capital investment spokesperson, he would back the Scottish Government‟s calls for the UK Government to bring forward shovel-ready projects. To date I have received no reply. Perhaps he would like to give me the answer now.
Richard Baker: Well, I did not get a letter. I say to Mr McDonald, “Just keep trying, Mark. Eventually you‟ll get there—persistence will pay off. Try not to be too disappointed about today.”
Even with the best will in the world and my many abilities, if I do not get a letter, I cannot reply to it.
As for the construction and capital investment that should be taking place, we find today that, on the basis of a draft report, the budget for the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement programme was cut by £350 million. In Aberdeen, our energy sector requires 120,000 new recruits.
Where is the plan to deal with that crucial issue for the economy of not just Aberdeen but Scotland?
The call in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report for an energy academy has come at a time when the SNP is slashing college budgets.
We heard yesterday that because Aberdeen City Council will not back the First Minister’s pet project, the Government is withdrawing support for new development in the city—and, in so doing, failing Aberdeen again.
In the previous session of the Parliament we were told that the Government’s overarching purpose was to secure economic growth.
To emphasise the point, the issue was referred to as “the Purpose”, with a capital P. However, the debate about the Government’s programme has shown a Government that has taken its eye off the ball on the economy and whose purpose is only Separation, with a capital S.
We will engage on the sustainable procurement bill, but Mr Neil has told us again and again that he cannot take the action that is needed on procurement because of European Union rules.
We need to ensure that by using community benefit clauses and awarding smaller contracts we give small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland a better chance of benefiting from public sector investment, thereby growing the economy.
Far from blocking such action, the EU has proposed a directive that will encourage contracting authorities to divide public contracts into lots, to make them more accessible for SMEs, and which will oblige contracting authorities that decide not to do that to provide an explanation.
Why does not the Scottish Government take such action, for which a bill is not needed? Why is it doing the opposite and creating contracts that are so big that only big businesses can bid for them?
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing (Alex Neil): Will the member give way?
Richard Baker: I had better take him.
Alex Neil: Let me confuse the member with some facts: 75 per cent of all the contracts that are let through the Scottish Government‟s portal go to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Richard Baker: Mr Neil never lets the facts get in his way or confuse him.
I refer him to the Jimmy Reid Foundation report that contradicts many of his comments on procurement.
Yesterday, the First Minister said that the Government will
“ensure that community benefit clauses are included in all ... public sector contracts”—[Official Report, 4 September 2012; c 10901.]
Why has not that been done already? On the Forth replacement crossing, the ship has sailed and Scottish firms have lost out, which is unfortunate.
We know how important new housing is to our economy and our construction industry.
However, the most recent budget slashed housing investment by £86 million, and the vaunted housing bill that was expected in the current programme is conspicuous by its absence.
That is not an auspicious record for Mr Neil to take to the health department.
It is not good enough to say that everything will be sorted after separation, as if that would free us from Tory Governments, when the SNP’s proposal on monetary policy is that future UK Governments, whatever their political complexion, will still make key decisions on our economy, with zero influence from politicians in Scotland.
Separation is the SNP’s obsession, but it is no solution.
For all that the SNP says that the economy is its focus, the current programme of bills and today‟s events show that the SNP Administration has its eye well and truly off the ball when it comes to taking the action that we need to restore Scotland to growth.
That is why we need to get beyond the process of the referendum and get on with making the decision, so that once Scotland has decided to maintain our membership of the United Kingdom we can all get on with what we should be doing in this devolved Parliament: delivering on the priorities that really matter for the people whom we represent.
