First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00438)
Later today, I will take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Excellent.
Today I would like to discuss a Royal Bank of Scotland banker who enjoyed huge success but whose arrogance drove him to overreach himself and lead Scotland to disaster. [Laughter.] The First Minister need not worry—I am not talking about him. I am, of course, talking about Fred Goodwin, the Fred Goodwin to whom the First Minister wrote to back the deal that broke the bank. The First Minister wrote:
“Dear Fred,
I wanted you to know that I am watching events closely on the ABN front. It is in Scottish interests for RBS to be successful, and I would like to offer any assistance my office can provide. Good luck with the bid.
Yours for Scotland,
Alex”.
Yesterday, the First Minister admitted that with “the benefit of hindsight” he would “do things differently”. Does that mean that he is prepared to apologise to the people of Scotland for his serious error of judgment?
As I said yesterday, I regret writing that letter. That much is obvious. However, as I said to Johann Lamont last week, I really do not think that Fred Goodwin is the Labour Party’s strongest suit. After all, as we now understand, my predecessor Jack McConnell recommended him for a knighthood and Gordon Brown as Prime Minister appointed him as one of his economic advisers. I certainly regret writing Fred Goodwin a letter, but I did not have him as a financial adviser; I did not have six meetings with him as chancellor as Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling did in the space of just over a year; and he was not at the heart of this Government, advising on economic policy. I really suggest to Johann Lamont that Fred Goodwin and the Fred Goodwin story are not the Labour Party’s strongest suit.
In my previous life as a schoolteacher, if I asked a child to accept that they had done something wrong, I did not accept the defence of, “It wisnae just me.” It is not a defence to say that other people made mistakes as well. What I asked the First Minister to do—and what he has singularly refused to do—was to apologise for his error of judgment. His judgment was wrong and he should apologise.
More important, however, the First Minister needs to learn a lesson from this. Mr Goodwin clearly got carried away with himself, did not ask the hard questions and became blind to the consequence. As the First Minister is in danger of doing likewise, let us look at the hard questions about separation; after all, I am not the only one who questions the First Minister’s judgment. His former economic adviser, Professor John Kay, says that if Scotland were to remain in a currency union,
“It might ... cause people to start wondering what the point of independence was in the first place”.
Will the First Minister tell Professor Kay and the rest of us what, exactly, the point is?
Before Johann Lamont wanders off the subject of Fred Goodwin, I remind her that the report on the Financial Services Authority’s inquiry into the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland was published on 12 December last year. It names three politicians as being influential in the FSA’s extraordinary decision to have lax financial supervision. The first is Tony Blair; the second is Gordon Brown; and the third is Ed Balls—one gone, one going and one still there.
As for the benefits of fiscal independence, I suspect that they have something to do with the fact that, right now, this Parliament controls about 12.5 per cent of Scotland’s finances and resources. Under the Calman proposals, that figure will creep up towards 20 per cent. However, under independence, we will control 100 per cent. That sounds to me like a benefit of independence.
The First Minister needs to learn from history, not rewrite it. The fact is that it was the First Minister who said that the problem with banking regulation was that it was gold plated and that he would lighten it.
I am curious as to why the First Minister is sticking by his plan to remain in a currency union. Last week, to bolster his position, he told us that there were 67 countries with a similar arrangement; however, all week, in response to my office, to the Scottish Parliament information centre and to the media, he refused to name them. Indeed, he named them only 30 minutes ago. It took him seven days to get information that he could have got in seven seconds from Wikipedia. [Interruption.]
Order. Please settle down.
We do not want to have people making things up on the hoof. Will the First Minister clear this up and give us three good examples of countries that do not have a central bank and are in a currency union?
Again, Johann Lamont tried to ask two questions in one. I turn to the first part of her question. She complained about one comment from me in 25 years about light-touch regulation. I remind her of the comments of the former Prime Minister who was in charge of these things in November 2005, as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Gordon Brown argued in a speech to the Confederation of British Industry on 28 November 2005 that he was proposing not just a light touch in regulation, but a limited touch. He went on:
“more than that, we should not only apply the concept of risk to the enforcement of regulation, but also to the design and indeed to the decision as to whether to regulate at all.”
He was not just proposing light-touch regulation. He was proposing no regulation. [Interruption.]
The Labour Party should not have to rely on the Scottish Government to provide it with ammunition. If Johann Lamont wants to ask me the question, she should ask me the question. [Interruption.] Is it not better to come along and ask the question as opposed to wanting the answer in advance?
On the other question, of the 20 most prosperous countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 11, including Switzerland, are in monetary unions. That sounds to me as if monetary unions are a pretty common feature across the planet and across prosperous countries.
Johann Lamont seems to complain that we have suggested that there should be a monetary union between Scotland and England after independence. We have merely pointed out last week and this week that such arrangements are not uncommon in the modern world and that the countries involved are still independent countries. It strikes me that, if it is good enough for all those other countries around the world, including 11 of the 20 most prosperous countries in the OECD, it might not be too bad a thing for Scotland.
Last week I helpfully explained why, given the huge protection that it would offer to the balance of payments, it might be rather a good thing for England as well. I am just trying to be helpful and co-operative. [Interruption.]
Before Ms Lamont continues, I point out that there is far too much shouting across the chamber. Ms Lamont is asking the questions and the First Minister is answering them. Will the rest of you settle down?
Would that it were so. The fact of the matter is that, whatever that was, it was not an answer, and it certainly did not clarify anything.
The reality is that up to a third of the countries that are identified in the 67 have no influence whatsoever. It appears that the First Minister is saying that he is pursuing independence at any cost. His case for independence is beginning to look like the RBS deal that broke the bank. He cannot provide the detail, and when we look at the proposal closely, it falls apart. He is proposing a currency union just like those in, say, Togo, San Marino or the Federated States of Micronesia.
In 2003, we were getting the euro. In 2005, we were getting a Scottish central bank. Yesterday, it was sterling, but somehow free from the Bank of England. Is it not demonstrably the case that the First Minister is simply unable to make an economic case for independence? Is he not in danger of becoming the Fred Goodwin of Scottish politics? [Interruption.]
Order.
Johann Lamont seems not to have appreciated my point that 11 of the most prosperous countries in the world are in a monetary union. It is not an unusual state of affairs. Nor has she taken on board the point that I made last week, that Gordon Brown gave away the right to set interest rates in 1997, when he declared the Bank of England independent. I think that the Labour Party has to catch up with the policies that it pursued in government.
Johann Lamont finds it amusing that the countries that she named are in monetary unions. Let us look at some of the countries in the world that are not in monetary unions. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran and North Korea are not in a monetary union. So what exactly is the point? It is a reasonable proposition to argue that a monetary union is not uncommon in the modern world. I referred to 11 of the top 20 most prosperous countries in the OECD. I believe that, of the other nine, all but Japan have been in a monetary arrangement at some point in fairly recent history. Therefore, monetary unions are not uncommon in the modern world.
The purpose and point of independence is to control the country’s taxation policy, resources and wealth. If we look at the past five years of Scotland’s balance of income and revenue, we will see that it is a fact that we would have been £7.5 billion better off if we had controlled our own revenue and resources. That seems to me to be a rather powerful economic argument for independence.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00432)
I am seeking early meetings with the Prime Minister, as I have been for the past six months or so. I hope that there will be an early meeting with him so that we can take forward a few matters on a mutual agenda.
I presume that the mutual agenda is the referendum. Since the referendum consultation was launched in the chamber, members on the Government benches, from the First Minister right through his Cabinet and down to the lowliest of lowly back benchers, have been using the removal of nuclear-armed and powered submarines from Faslane as a reason for Scotland to become a state separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Faslane naval base is the largest single-site employer in Scotland, with 6,500 people working on the Clyde.
The latest Ministry of Defence figures show that there are 18,000 uniformed and civilian defence personnel based across 30 of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas. That does not include the 4,500 workers in yards in Rosyth and on the Clyde who are building navy destroyers and aircraft carriers, or the thousands of other defence contractors throughout Scotland who are engaged in work for the UK military.
We know that the First Minister wants to decimate the 6,500-strong workforce at Faslane, but how many defence workers—uniformed or otherwise—does he plan to keep?
The estimated cost of a replacement for the Trident submarine fleet over the next generation is £100,000 million. I do not believe that even Ruth Davidson would argue that there could not be more sensible investment that would create far more jobs than investment in a new generation of Trident submarines.
The guarantee that we have given, as opposed to what has happened under the UK Government, is that we would maintain the military establishment in terms of bases after independence. That includes a naval base at Faslane, which, incidentally, is not just the home of the Trident fleet; it is also the home of minesweepers and other submarines.
I am interested in the proposition that there could be no orders for Scottish yards post-independence. On 4 October 2011, “Jane’s Defence Industry”—the bible of military procurement—said:
“The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is entering the final round of bidding for its MARS (Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability) Tanker requirement, with just three of the original six contenders left in the frame … Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (South Korea), Fincantieri (Italy) and Hyundai Heavy Industries (South Korea) remain in contention.”
Is Ruth Davidson’s proposition really that the Ministry of Defence will purchase from Italy and South Korea, but not from the Clyde yards or Rosyth? Under current European Union regulation, that is perfectly permissible and possible. The Clyde yards exist because of the excellence of their workforce and the efficiency of the products that they produce. It would be quite interesting if, given its lowly position in Scottish politics, the Conservative Party realised that talking down Scotland in such a manner is not the way to obtain votes from the Scottish people.
So, no answer then on the number of jobs that the First Minister plans to keep, just as there is no answer on what the one naval base in an independent Scotland would have in terms of minesweepers, destroyers or frigates, or on what would be done with the Marines and what would be done about a fleet auxiliary.
Let us look at the experts’ response to the First Minister’s defence plans. A former commander of the Black Watch, Lt Col Sir Andrew Ogilvy-Wedderburn, said that the First Minister had
“absolutely no grasp of how the British Armed Forces work”.
Lord Robertson—[Laughter.]
Order.
Lord Robertson, the former secretary-general of NATO said that the First Minister’s plans have “no coherence or relevance”. He continued:
“And what about logistical troops? Or combat support and combat service support? Engineers, medics, communicators, reconnaissance, surveillance and intelligence forces ... Nothing is said about how this gap is to be filled”.
Colonel Clive Fairweather, a former commanding officer of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers and former deputy commander of the SAS, said:
“I have respect for some of the stuff the SNP come up with and are proposing, but when it comes to defence I don't think they have a scooby.
I do find Mr Salmond very, very, very weak in this area. I have watched him, I have been with him, he doesn’t really understand it. He really doesn’t get it.”
There are many unanswered questions on the Scottish Government’s plans for defence, but I will ask just one, which comes from a young Scottish soldier who is based down south and wrote to me this week.
He has not been sacked yet, then.
I would have thought that the member would have more respect. [Interruption.]
Order. The member is speaking.
He wrote:
“Dear Ms Davidson,
I am currently serving in the British Army and have done so for the past 2 years.
I am due to deploy on operations in Afghanistan in early April, I love my job and am proud to serve this country.
I am sure you are aware of the phrase ‘back of a fag packet’ and this it seems, is how Mr Salmond has developed his ‘plan’ for the Armed Forces.
I would be greatly appreciative if you could raise the following question for me ... Does he envisage a point where those serving will be forced to make a choice between the uniform in which they have faithfully served the crown and in many cases tragically lost friends, and the country of their birth?”
Well, does he?
People would certainly have a choice in terms of the armed forces in which they served. At the last count, I think that there are members of 23 nationalities serving in the British armed forces.
The issue of choice is a valuable one. The soldiers who are being made compulsorily redundant at the moment do not have a choice. They are being made compulsorily redundant by the Government that Ruth Davidson supports while many of them have been in theatres of conflict. That is no choice at all.
I met Clive Fairweather when I was marching to defend the Scottish regiments that were being shut down by the Labour Government. In that regard, I do not think that George Robertson is the strongest suit for the Conservatives. After all, not only did George Robertson say that devolution would kill the Scottish National Party stone dead, which I do not think has quite happened—[Laughter.]
Ruth Davidson should have a glance at today’s Ipsos MORI opinion poll, which shows 49 per cent support for the Scottish National Party and 12 per cent support for the Conservative Party, which is a reduction even on that party’s previous record low levels.
As I was saying, George Robertson described the strategic defence review as being neither strategic nor a defence review. Ruth Davidson should be careful whom she quotes.
On advisers, I liked the quotation that I read from the former financial adviser to the Conservative Party and former member of this Parliament, Brian Monteith. Only two days ago, he wrote:
“By taking a position of no more powers because he says so, the Prime Minister has laid his party open to the charge of arrogance and left isolated those Tories who seek to defend him. With these injudicious comments in his name, the Prime Minister has consigned Ruth Davidson’s nascent leadership in Scotland to ignominy and failure.”
I never thought that I would find myself in agreement with Brian Monteith, but perhaps he is on to something at last.
The First Minister will be aware that, over the past three weeks, the chairman and three members of the board of Adam Smith College have resigned following allegations of bullying, intimidation, victimisation and financial mismanagement. What actions can be taken to hold an external investigation into the governance and management of Adam Smith College?
The Scottish Government takes very seriously allegations of this kind. It is important that all the facts are scrutinised before any specific course of action can be taken. To that end, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has asked the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to take appropriate steps and report on the issue, taking account of all the evidence available and seeking assurances that the college’s governance and management practices are properly and effectively serving the needs of learners.
I have been informed that one bid in relation to the Forth crossing included the supply of steel by Tata from the Dalzell plant in Motherwell. That would have been a major boost for employment in my constituency and in Lanarkshire, and for Scotland’s steel industry. Will the First Minister therefore explain why Transport Scotland has said that no Scottish firms were involved? Will he meet Tata’s chief executive to discuss the Scottish steel industry’s role?
I would certainly be glad to arrange a ministerial meeting. I point out that 118 subcontracts have been awarded to Scottish firms from the total of 155 subcontracts that have been awarded to date. That represents 76 per cent of total subcontracts. We can also consider that 870 of the 1,041 supply orders that have been awarded for the principal contract have gone to Scottish companies.
I cite those figures as strong evidence because I know that the member would not wish to give a misleading impression about the willingness to award contracts to Scottish companies when possible. The figures illustrate that determination. I am happy to arrange ministerial meetings, because the evidence indicates a strong willingness among the consortium’s members—including Morrison Construction—to make awards to Scottish contractors when possible.
Higher Education (Scotland-based Students)
3. To ask the First Minister what impact the increase in applications to Scottish universities from Scotland-based students will have on the higher education sector. (S4F-00445)
I am delighted that institutions in Scotland are reporting an increase in the number of applications from Scottish students. The Government has protected funding to our universities to ensure that Scotland continues to deliver world-class higher education. That is recognised in the fact that five of our universities are in the top 200 universities worldwide, which should be a matter for general celebration in the Parliament.
Does the First Minister agree that, as applications by English students to English universities are down by 9.8 per cent and the number of Scots who are applying to study in England is down by 16.4 per cent, that demonstrates perfectly the destructive nature of the fee regime south of the border?
I noticed that the National Union of Students said that the figures fully vindicated the Scottish Government’s approach of abolishing tuition fees for Scottish students. The figures mean that the fears and claims that the Labour Party expressed have proved to be totally ill-founded. When the initial figures came out, it was explained that the Labour Party should wait until the complete figures were available. Labour should have taken that advice from the education secretary. Given the difficult position that faces our universities and students, the overwhelming opinion is that our universities are better funded than are any similar institutions across these islands.
Back in 1979, some people in the university sector campaigned not to be under the province of any Scottish Parliament. Now, I doubt whether a single person in the university sector would want to have anything other than the sympathetic treatment of this Parliament, as opposed to the fate that has been delivered to universities in England.
The decline in the number of English students who are applying to Scottish universities is half the decline in English students who are applying to English universities. It seems to me that the education secretary and our universities have got the balance right in maintaining the standard of education in Scotland, maintaining the excellence, maintaining the broad cross-section and—above all—maintaining the entitlement to free education for the people of Scotland.
The £75 million per year that the Scottish Government is using to provide free tuition for foreign students could be spent on Scotland’s colleges. Will the First Minister give me a guarantee that such spending will stop?
As the member knows, the education secretary is working to ensure that a charge of some kind can be applied to other students from the European Union. Hugh Henry should reflect on the fact that, across the sector, the biggest rise in student numbers has been in international students from outwith the European Union. I would have thought that he would agree that that indicates the excellence and quality of Scottish university education.
On the college sector, I point out the extraordinary increase in capital investment that affects colleges such as Forth Valley College, Dundee College, Inverness College UHI, the colleges in Glasgow—an amazing amount of capital investment has been made there—and Kilmarnock College. That investment is many times the investment that was made in any year under the Labour-Liberal coalition. The member should reflect on the fact that the regional structure for colleges and the capital investment that is being made is substantially good news for the college sector in Scotland. Just as there seems to be no complaint now, there is substantially good news for the university sector in Scotland.
Youth Unemployment
4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to address unemployment among young people. (S4F-00437)
I appointed Angela Constance as the first Minister for Youth Employment anywhere in these islands to lead our response in driving up youth employment, and I announced an additional £30 million investment to support the opportunities for all commitment.
I welcome those actions, of course. However, the Labour Party voted against the Scottish Government’s commitment to provide 25,000 modern apprenticeships in every year of the parliamentary session. Will the First Minister give us an update on the progress of the apprenticeships, which offer a vital way of ensuring that young people get the skills and experience that they need to gain future employment?
I noticed some surprise among Labour members when Christina McKelvie made her comment. I know that there are many new Labour members and, given that Labour has fallen to a historic low of 23 per cent in the MORI poll that I mentioned earlier, there might be a further turnaround in policy to come after the next election.
The point is true and the new members can consult their experienced colleagues on that. The Labour Party got itself into a position of voting against a budget that proposed 25,000 modern apprenticeships, which is 60 per cent more than existed when the Labour Party was in office.
I am delighted to be able to tell Christina McKelvie that Skills Development Scotland is now confident that even that mighty total of 25,000 apprenticeships, all of which are attached to a job in Scotland—one of the crucial points about our modern apprenticeships—will be achieved during the current financial year. Every member of Parliament should support and celebrate that.
I was pleased to attend the national economic forum yesterday, because all parties are committed to tackling youth unemployment and the national crisis that faces Scotland’s young people. When will the First Minister accept that his plans to cut college budgets will only make life harder for the 100,000 young Scots who are looking to him for help?
I welcome the all-party involvement at yesterday’s forum, including the member. It is excellent when members across the chamber prioritise youth employment. We had questions about the importance of support for students and an acknowledgement of our aims and intentions around the minimum income guarantee.
However, I gently point out to the member that the sum for support for students that she is complaining about is, despite the extraordinary level of cuts in public spending, substantially higher than the one that we inherited when we took office in 2007. In addition, the education maintenance allowance, which is absolutely critical to many pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who are staying on at school or going to college, has been maintained in Scotland even though it has been abolished south of the border.
Prison Visiting Committees
5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will reconsider the decision to abolish prison visiting committees. (S4F-00441)
I know that there was a lively debate on that issue earlier.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has indicated that the proposals on prison visiting are about modernising and developing a service that meets prisoners’ needs. As he outlined in the chamber a few minutes ago, he will carry out a further public consultation on the proposals and will continue discussions with stakeholders on developing the best way forward. This move will ensure that we have a service that is fit for this century.
It would help if the First Minister withdrew the letter that he submitted a few days ago saying that he would abolish the committees. We all recognise the need for independent advocacy, and many prisoners should already have rights to it under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, but will the Government stop using that as cover for the abolition of prison visiting committees, which fulfil a completely different role in monitoring, complaints, and the reporting of problems?
In the current Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, the Government has recognised the need to strengthen the independent monitoring of police custody cells. Will the First Minister demonstrate consistency and coherence by allowing the prison visiting committees to continue their vitally important work?
I am sure that it is inadvertent, but I do not think that Malcolm Chisholm is being altogether fair to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. It seems to me that the amendment in the Business Bulletin and the attitude that he has struck up in holding a further public consultation on the proposals indicate a willingness to listen and to take into account people’s views.
I do not think that Malcolm Chisholm should take the view that the structure that we have had for more than a century is inevitably the right structure. He will remember that, thanks to the legacy of the Labour-Liberal coalition, we ran into very substantial problems on issues such as slopping out, which cost the public purse substantial amounts of money and which, if we had not taken remedial action, could have cost us substantially more.
Given that we are looking at the checks and balances on a prison service for this century, the cabinet secretary’s indication that he is willing to listen and to go out to further consultation should be welcomed by Malcolm Chisholm with his usual generosity.
Green Investment Bank
6. To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government has given to Edinburgh’s bid to host the green investment bank. (S4F-00450)
On 23 May, as part of a wide-ranging discussion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I put forward Edinburgh as a possible location for the green investment bank. I am delighted to say that a broad partnership of private and public sector bodies—including, to name just a few, City of Edinburgh Council, Scottish Financial Enterprise, Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, Scottish Power, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Grant Thornton—has backed the proposal.
I am sure that Murdo Fraser will want to welcome the efforts of that cross-party partnership and that, with the touch for unity of purpose that he always displays, he would not want to do anything to disrupt that unity at this vital time.
I thank the First Minister for his response and warmly welcome the cross-party support for bringing an important UK institution, with its many jobs, to Edinburgh.
Should Edinburgh’s bid be successful, would the First Minister be surprised if, pending the outcome of the referendum, the UK green investment bank signed only a short-term lease?
I can say a number of things to Murdo Fraser. We have just established the headquarters of the British-Irish Council in this capital city of Edinburgh, recognising that there will be shared interests across these islands after Scottish independence, which will be deployed. I am sure that green investment will be a shared interest across these islands because, only yesterday, I had a meeting with the chief executive of the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets, in which he expressed his fear that, without substantial quantities of marine electricity coming down into the English market from the west and possibly the east coast of Scotland, security of supply of electricity to the English grid would be a severe issue. That would seem to me to be a shared interest. The UK energy minister Charles Hendry has also been discussing that issue with the Republic of Ireland.
When it comes to investment in Scotland, I notice that that same energy minister is showing a tremendous confidence and is leading by example. Only in the past few weeks, he has bought Blair castle in Ayrshire as a second home for £2.5 million. While regaling us about a possible lack of confidence in Scotland, against all the available evidence, including that of the magnificent Samsung investment only this week, he is doing what any member of the Tory Cabinet in London would do—investing a small part of their personal fortune in a Scottish castle.
12:33
Meeting suspended.
14:15
On resuming—