Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02047)
With your permission, Presiding Officer, I say that I think that members will be interested to know that figures released today reveal that, as of 10 March, more than 98,000 16 and 17-year-olds have registered to vote in the independence referendum. That is some 80 per cent of all 16 and 17-year-olds, and there is still four months to go before the registration deadline.
I thank the First Minister very much for that information. Of course, we should all reflect on all those young people who not only have a vote but are currently sitting examinations. We wish them well.
According to Amnesty International, Vladimir Putin has effectively criminalised homosexuality, has cracked down on democratic dissent, carries out arbitrary arrests and has corrupted the judicial process. Also, many journalists have disappeared after criticising the Kremlin. However, the First Minister has expressed his admiration for Putin. Will the First Minister now withdraw his ill-judged comments and apologise to the people of Scotland and the people of Ukraine?
No—but I will explain my comments.
The first thing that I said was that I do not approve of a range of Russian actions, by which I meant the attitude not just to Ukraine but to human rights, and in particular to homosexuals. I said that I believe that Vladimir Putin has been underestimated by the western press—I think that that is now pretty obvious—and I also expressed my admiration for “Certain aspects.” I had in mind the restoration of Russian pride, given that I was speaking in the aftermath of the Sochi Olympics. [Interruption.]
Order.
Indeed, I was speaking during the Paralympics.
I believe that our attitude to the issue is reasonable and consistent. On 9 January the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs met the Russian consul general to express our opposition to Russian policies on homosexuality; on 13 March we expressed, again to the consul general, our concern about the Russian attitude to Ukraine; and on 26 March we withdrew the invitation to the consular corps dinner—an action that was widely reported—and said:
“We have taken this step following the Russian Federation’s illegal and illegitimate referendum in the Crimea and the steps subsequently taken to annex the territory”.
The Scottish Government’s—and my—position on those matters has been totally consistent.
Strangely enough, I was searching today to find what Johann Lamont has said about the situation in Ukraine. I could not find a single comment—not just by Johann Lamont, but by any of the Opposition leaders this year. I think that my explanation of the serious attitude that we have taken to this serious subject sets out a reasonable perspective that reflects the views of the people of Scotland.
No matter how hard the First Minister Googles it, he will not find me expressing any admiration for Vladimir Putin.
On the Sochi Olympics, I think that the protesters who were beaten with horsewhips there might have a different view of the success of those Olympics. The First Minister says that his position is reasonable and consistent, but to Amnesty International and others it is something different. Michael Ostapko, who leads Scotland’s Ukrainian population, has expressed that community’s
“hurt, disgust, betrayal and astonishment”
at the First Minister’s comments. In a letter to the First Minister, he said:
“We cannot see any good in Putin’s actions and we fail to see how you can be so effusive in admiration towards this despotic and criminally run nation whose own citizens are cowed into submission (not admiration) by arrests, assassination and rabid nationalism.”
Will the First Minister now withdraw his support of Vladimir Putin and apologise?
I make it absolutely clear that when I expressed my view about the restoration of Russian pride, I was referring to the Olympics and the Paralympics. We expressed our opposition to the attitude to homosexuality prior to the Olympics, but based on a range of indications in terms of their organisation, the Olympics were widely regarded as a substantial success. I have a range of quotations before me that indicate that.
When I said that I did not approve of a range of Russian actions, I was reflecting a serious view that has been put forward by the Scottish Government consistently, before I gave that interview and since I gave it. That view has also consistently been put to the Ukrainian authorities in several meetings. We have done that, and I have expressed my opposition to a range of Russian actions and have explained that we have held that position consistently. Is not that a reasonable position to adopt?
Why is it only now that Johann Lamont has anything whatever to say about human rights in Russia or the situation in Ukraine, and why is it only now that the Labour Party in Scotland decides that it is something that is worth raising?
The position that we have put forward has been consistent and balanced. It shows that we do not approve of Russian actions and consists of comments that are reasonable in the circumstances, and we back that up by the action that we have taken. None of the Opposition parties in this Parliament have expressed any concern in public, that I can find—[Interruption.]
If Johann Lamont can point to a quotation that shows that she was interested in this topic before today, I will be delighted to acknowledge that she expressed such a view. [Interruption.]
Order.
I have pointed to the Scottish Government’s consistent actions over a period of time. I think that it is reasonable to find out whether the Labour Party in this Parliament has any similar record of action or concern.
I am a proud member of Amnesty International and I support what it has said on this question, and I recognise all the human rights abuses that it has identified across the world.
The First Minister does not seem to understand that all the things that his Scottish Government has said on the question are completely undermined by the assertion that the Sochi Olympics and what Putin did there are worthy of any admiration whatsoever.
Putin has annexed Crimea. Putin says that acts such as annexing Crimea have restored Russian pride. Alex Salmond has praised Putin for restoring Russian pride. Does the First Minister, even at this stage, not see that his comments were, at best, ill judged and must be withdrawn? What on earth does he admire so much about Putin? If the First Minister bullies and threatens Scottish newspapers because he does not like their cartoons, perhaps we can see what he admires about Putin.
Even at this stage, will Alex Salmond now apologise for praising Vladimir Putin?
No. I state again the first thing that I said in the interview, which was that I do not approve of a range of Russian actions. I have told how we have communicated that to the consul general and publicised it. I have also, on many occasions, drawn a contrast between the legitimate democratic referendum process in Scotland and the lack of constitutionality and process in the referendums that were arranged in the Crimea. That is a reasonable thing to do, backed up by action.
I think that there are reasons to doubt the bona fides of Johann Lamont and the other parties on this issue; it is not just about the absence of comment. I have seen the letter to the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, Scotland that was signed by the three leaders of the better together campaign. Nowhere in that letter is there reference to better together’s leading donor, Ian Taylor, the boss of Vitol, who made a £500,000 donation to the campaign. Is Johann Lamont aware that Vitol is engaged in a business relationship, including a loan of $10 billion, with Rosneft, whose boss Igor Sechin is on the banned list of the American Government? [Interruption.]
Order.
Will Johann Lamont think about apologising to the people of Ukraine for that association? Furthermore, will any consideration be given to returning to Mr Taylor the better together donation of £500,000?
Only in the SNP could that be regarded as an appropriate answer to a serious question when the reputation of the people of Scotland has been damaged by the performance of the First Minister.
The First Minister would not meet the Dalai Lama, but he praises Rupert Murdoch, Nigel Farage and an ex-KGB officer who is accused of abusing his own citizens’ human rights—all in the one interview—and then slags off Barack Obama.
Eh?
You should read the interview.
Alex Salmond criticised Obama for not doing enough, but then said that Vladimir Putin is “more effective” than most
“and you can see why he carries support in Russia.”
He said that he admires “Certain aspects” of Putin’s character. He also said:
“He’s restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing”
regardless of the price that people in Russia have paid for that restoration. If, as is evidently the case, the First Minister will not withdraw those remarks and apologise, will he tell us—the people of Scotland and people around the world—precisely what aspects of Vladimir Putin he so admires?
I did that in my answer to the first two questions. I point out, for the record, that Johann Lamont has engaged in a series of misquotations. To take one example, I said:
“Putin’s more effective than the press he gets”.
That has been confirmed by the magazine. I had in mind the fact that the western press have consistently underestimated President Putin. I think that that is pretty obvious from the events of the past few weeks.
I have said—let me say it again—that I do not approve of Russian actions across a range of issues. Consistently, the Government has set out what those issues are, despite silence from all the Opposition parties on those issues.
On the issue of Lord George Robertson’s call last month for Russia to be admitted to NATO, the president of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, Zenko Lastowiecki, has said:
“We can’t comment on his reasoning but it is extremely bizarre whilst insulting to the Ukrainian nation”.
I am sure that, when Johann Lamont explains why better together’s biggest donor has business links with people on the American Government’s banned list, she will also apologise for the insult that has been caused by her party colleague, Lord George Robertson.
We have deprecated Russian actions and attitudes to Ukraine and we have spelled out that we do not support Russia’s attitude to human rights and to homosexuality. We have done those things consistently throughout this year. We did not want to alight on the issue as part of a combined better together political opportunity. We said those things before, during and after the interview with GQ, which is why we have substantially more credibility than the Opposition parties in this chamber, and we will continue to say them without fear or favour.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02044)
No plans in the near future.
The First Minister has said that he wants us to put his comments into context, so let us do that.
On the same day that the First Minister sat down with Alastair Campbell, 10,000 Russian troops were massing on the Ukrainian border. Ukraine’s Prime Minister said that Russia was demonstrating
“military aggression”
that had
“no reason and no grounds”.
Two days earlier, President Obama pledged to “stand with Ukraine”. Twenty-four hours later, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, attacked Russian actions, warning that
“The territorial integrity of Ukraine cannot be called into question.”
On 14 March, the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, William Hague, called on the international community
“to take a united stand together”
to defend the
“territorial integrity of another nation.”
That was the day that Alex Salmond used to praise Vladimir Putin, an act that he is still defending in the chamber.
Your party supported the Khmer Rouge and Pinochet.
Order.
The First Minister says that he was not wrong, but can he see why so many other people think that he was?
I will be writing to the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain and its Scottish branch explaining the full range of the Scottish Government’s action on the matter and making it clear how, all through the meetings with the Russian consul general and the Ukrainian representatives, and the public statements that I and others have made, which have been substantially reported, we have made our attitude towards the Russian attitude to Ukraine absolutely clear, as well as expressing our concern with human rights in Russia, as indeed I did when I deprecated a range of Russian actions in the interview that Ruth Davidson cites.
I have been unable to find any comment on the issue not only from Johann Lamont but from Ruth Davidson. Ruth Davidson should also have some understanding that, when the Scottish Government has a substantial record of consistent comment on exactly these matters over the past few months, that stands in stark comparison with Opposition parties that had nothing to say on the issue until they sensed a political opportunity.
I repeat for the record that we deprecate Russian actions in Ukraine. We are concerned for human rights not just in Russia but all over the planet. We have consistently said that and we will continue to do so.
A substantial number of the people of Scotland would have preferred an absence of comment from the First Minister in admiration of Vladimir Putin.
This is a question of judgment. The First Minister says that he backs our key British alliances around the world. He has shifted his tack to support NATO. He says that he wants to show our closest allies in Europe and the United States that he will stand alongside them. At the same time, however, we see a leader who continues to make poorly timed and badly judged interventions on foreign affairs. The First Minister was wrong about Kosovo and he is wrong about Putin. We know what Amnesty International thinks, we know what the Ukrainian people in Scotland think and we know what other world leaders think. How can we trust the First Minister to represent Scotland on the global stage when he so consistently gets it wrong?
That question really was on the nub of the issue facing the people of Ukraine. Let me express again our concern about Russian actions in Ukraine, our concern for the Ukrainian people and our concern for human rights in Russia, which are the substantial issues. However, I am interested in when Vladimir Putin suddenly became persona non grata with the Conservative Administration.
“Cameron’s plea to Putin: help me stop Salmond” was the headline from earlier this year, repeated in this Parliament last month at committee, when a Scottish official from the Scotland Office confirmed that he had discussed that report in a meeting in which he was briefing the Russian Government. Perhaps he was just asking for information and he was doing things in a totally balanced way. However, Ruth Davidson will understand why, if in January her party was appealing for Vladimir Putin’s support, it is ill judged to come to the chamber and tell us that the Conservatives have condemned him throughout.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02046)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of great importance to the people of Scotland.
The First Minister is not a homophobe nor does he support the Syrian regime, but he must realise that if he praises people who do, he diminishes himself. He mentioned Sochi. The Prime Minister and leaders of the western world spoke for us all when they boycotted Sochi because of Putin, but the First Minister praises Putin because of Sochi. Considering the international storm, is he still adamant that he did the right thing?
There is an acceptance from a range of people internationally, including the American ambassador and the Canadian Olympic president, that the Sochi Olympics were well organised and helped to restore pride to the people of Russia. The International Olympic Committee praised the excellent Sochi 2014 games. Across a range of international opinion, that was accepted.
Why does the Liberal Democrat leader not accept that there is concern across this Parliament for the issue of human rights, that the Scottish Government’s record on human rights internationally has been described as exemplary and that we have worked with the Scottish Human Rights Commission and a wide range of civil society organisations to produce the first ever national action plan for human rights in Scotland as well as recognising our responsibilities internationally? It would be wonderful if, just occasionally, Willie Rennie would accept that other people, apart from the Liberal Democrats, have expressed a consistent concern for human rights in our country and across the planet.
The First Minister said that his remarks were balanced. Moscow did not think so. President Putin lapped up the praise. I do not get why the First Minister’s spokesman thought earlier this week that it was okay to praise President Putin back in March. Putin has not just started persecuting gay people, restricting free speech, threatening to cut off Europe’s gas supplies, backing the Syrian regime and invading his neighbours. He has been doing it for years. And it is not the first time for the First Minister, either—kowtowing to the Chinese over the Dalai Lama, on Kosovo, and now on Russia. The First Minister wants us to stand tall in the world, but does he not just look small?
Well, where will I start with Willie Rennie?
Here we go.
Order.
Willie Rennie, like his two colleagues in Better Together, did not mention the £500,000 donation from the man who has business links with people on the American banned list.
Apart from that, Willie Rennie has never acknowledged—he actually claimed the opposite, I think—that I raised human rights with the Chinese leadership. Can he please explain the BBC report that shows me and the Chinese leadership with the headline “Salmond raises China’s human rights”? I think that I have a track record of raising human rights with countries around the world without fear or favour. In contrast, Willie Rennie, rather like his two colleagues, has said nothing about this issue that I can find on the record until today.
It was, of course, Willie Rennie’s party colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland who, when the Scotland Office official was about to divulge to this Parliament’s committee exactly what the briefing at the Russian embassy was about earlier this year, interrupted him and said that that information could not be disclosed. No doubt there are limits to the Liberal Democrats’ wish for freedom of expression and freedom of information, but when it comes to denying this Parliament’s committees information about what exactly was going to be briefed to the Russian embassy, I think that at some point Willie Rennie might accept that he and his party have associations of which they should not be proud, and that he and his party, who were calling in aid Vladimir Putin earlier this year, look a bit ridiculous condemning him now when they have said nothing up until this moment.
Independence (European Union Membership)
To ask the First Minister what recent contact he has had with the UK Government regarding an independent Scotland’s membership of the EU. (S4F-02065)
As is well known, the United Kingdom Government has repeatedly refused to jointly approach the European Commission with the precise legal scenario on Scottish independence—a point that I made in correspondence with the Foreign Secretary on Sunday. He wrote me a letter and I replied that day. I hope that new, intimate communication between ourselves and the UK Government will result in the UK Government changing its mind and our jointly going to the European Commission with the precise legal scenario so that we can take these matters forward.
I thank the First Minister for that answer and note how well attended the speech that he made this week at the College of Europe was. That demonstrates the huge interest that there is across Europe—which I have seen on the European and External Relations Committee—in the debate over Scotland’s constitutional future. [Interruption.]
Order.
What consideration has been given to the consequences of Scotland not being in the European Union, particularly for our friends and neighbours elsewhere in the EU?
In contrast to the position of the better together parties in the Parliament, there is a wide appreciation across Europe of Scotland’s contribution to the European Union. We may make up 1 per cent of the population of the EU, but we have 60 per cent of the oil resource, 25 per cent of the renewable energy potential and 20 per cent of the fishing stocks of the EU. Therefore, although this country has 1 per cent of the EU’s population, it has a substantial role to play in Europe. That is appreciated by our friends and colleagues across the continent but, sadly, it is not appreciated by the better together alliance.
The First Minister’s trip to Bruges, to which Ms McKelvie has just referred, has borne fruit somewhat earlier than he might have expected, in that he now has advice that his Government is perfectly entitled to implement a living wage through public sector contracts. Therefore, will he now instruct his members to back Scottish Labour’s amendments to the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill and acknowledge that the way is now clear to allow him finally to do the right thing for Scotland’s workers?
That is a bit wide of the mark, but the First Minister may respond.
Let us just remember that it was this Government that introduced the living wage across the public sector in Scotland.
I presume that the legal opinion that Patricia Ferguson cites is the view of the spokesperson who was quoted in The Scotsman as saying that European law was
“not preventing it, but it was possible it could be challenged by companies at a later stage”.
That is exactly the issue. The European Commission has suggested in correspondence with the Scottish Government that it would be incompatible with the posting of workers directive for us to set a living wage that was higher than the minimum wage. [Interruption.] Well, I cite the correspondence from the European Commission that does that and I will put it in SPICe. I contrast what it said with the quote in The Scotsman, which said that making a living wage a requirement of public sector contracts
“could be challenged by companies at a later stage”.
This Government has introduced the living wage across the Scottish public sector; that is something the Labour Party omitted or forgot to do. We are proud of that. This Government is introducing procurement legislation to encourage the adoption of the living wage across Scottish society. This Government is pressing the European Commission to make it unambiguous that the living wage can be part of public sector contracts, so that councils such as Glasgow City Council do not have to answer freedom of information requests and admit that they share the same opinion as the Scottish Government as regards the European Commission.
Can we not join together and say that, if the European Union is to be meaningful to workers across the continent, it should have a social purpose? The living wage is a grand example of such progress.
Mortonhall Investigation (Support for Parents and Families)
To ask the First Minister, following the publication of the Mortonhall investigation, how the Scottish Government plans to support parents and families affected. (S4F-02053)
I know that the thoughts of all of us are with the families affected, who have suffered not only the loss of a child, but the additional trauma that the Mortonhall report highlights. That experience has been going on for decades.
No one should ever have to experience that pain, and we are determined that no one will ever have to do so again. That is why the outcome of the work of Lord Bonomy’s infant cremation commission, along with the findings of Dame Elish Angiolini, will lead to new burials and cremation legislation.
Stopping such terrible events happening again is a priority of the Parliament, but we must care for those who are affected in the here and now. Last year, we provided additional funding to assist the two counselling organisations that have done such sterling work through their close involvement with the parents affected by the issue. Today, I can announce that we are making available an additional £100,000 for counselling services for the families affected. Scottish Government officials have already begun discussions with the two counselling organisations to take that forward.
I assure Kezia Dugdale that the Scottish Government will implement the recommendations of Elish Angiolini’s report as regards the Government; the City of Edinburgh Council has made a similar commitment. We will put into legislation the recommendations of Lord Bonomy’s infant cremation commission at the earliest possible moment, so that such events never befall any family in Scotland again.
I welcome the additional funds. I know that the services that the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society and the Simpson’s Memory Box Appeal offer parents are very important and make a difference.
Presiding Officer, when you or I lose someone who is close to us, we have countless memories to call on, as well as photographs and possessions. Parents who lose a baby have only those brief moments. That is why the ashes matter so much.
Parents affected by Mortonhall wanted the truth. Thanks to Elish Angiolini’s report, many now know with certainty that they will never know where their baby’s ashes are. Will the First Minister promise parents beyond Mortonhall—those in Aberdeen, Falkirk, Glasgow and elsewhere—that his Government will do everything in its power to access the truth for them, no matter how hard it is to accept?
I give that commitment. Kezia Dugdale is right. There are a number of key priorities in the issue. The first is to find out exactly why, over many decades, the processes at Mortonhall—and perhaps elsewhere—were allowed to exist and to continue in the way that they did.
Secondly, I should tell the Parliament that the Lord Advocate has referred Elish Angiolini’s report to the police for further investigation. We must first allow that investigation of any possible criminality to take its proper course.
The third aspect is perhaps the most important of all; Kezia Dugdale referred to it. I have met a number of the parents, as ministers and Opposition members have. A key priority is to ensure as far as possible—although Elish Angiolini’s report indicates that it will never be possible in some cases—that every possible investigation has been made into every individual case. I assure Kezia Dugdale that that is predominant in the Scottish Government’s consideration of how we proceed from here.
I am aware that a number of members wish to ask questions on this very important issue, but there is to be a statement later this afternoon, when members will have ample opportunity to ask whatever questions they wish. I will ensure that sufficient time is available for all the issues in the report to get a fair hearing.
Curriculum for Excellence (Funding)
To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government is having with the Scottish Qualifications Authority regarding the future funding of the curriculum for excellence. (S4F-02050)
As we heard earlier, I am sure that the whole Parliament wishes luck to all the young people who are taking exams this year—not least those who are sitting the higher English exam as I speak and those who will sit advanced higher English this afternoon. We have seen excellent exam results in recent years and I am sure that the dedication and hard work of pupils and their teachers will once again pay off.
The Scottish Government is in regular discussion with all partners, including the SQA, on implementing the curriculum for excellence.
I add my good wishes to the pupils.
The Herald reported earlier this week that, at a recent SQA board meeting, warnings were issued that the current position of financial deficit is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, because of the increasing costs of implementing the curriculum for excellence and the related support for teachers. Teachers’ representatives told the Parliament recently that some of the preparations for the new higher and the new advanced higher have barely begun. What is the revised estimate for the full cost of implementing the curriculum for excellence, including the new higher and the new advanced higher?
I have a range of calculations, following that report, which show the Scottish Qualifications Authority’s income and expenditure balance, and I am prepared to make them available to the member. Each year, the Scottish Government works closely with the SQA to ensure that the SQA reaches a balanced budget position. The obligations of implementing the curriculum for excellence are obviously part of that budget consideration. I assure the member that that is being and will be done. I will provide the range of figures that give the detailed answer to her question.
Previous
General Question Time