First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00641)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Given the further revelations in the past few days, why does the First Minister still believe that Rupert Murdoch is a fit person to run an international media company?
I have said that that should be judged by the relevant authorities—that means the Office of Communications, in terms of broadcasting, and in general terms the Leveson inquiry. That is where those matters should be judged in an independent manner.
The Labour Party’s actions yesterday on a House of Commons committee served only to split that committee on political lines and were not advisable. [Interruption.] It is a statement of fact that the committee was split on political lines, when it was meant to be unified in pursuing an inquiry. That is exactly what happened. Incidentally, I note that the Labour leadership in London, unlike Johann Lamont, when asked that very question, said that the matters should be judged by Ofcom and the Leveson inquiry.
I presume that the First Minister is content to be on the same side as the Tories in their view of Rupert Murdoch. I would have a bit more respect for the First Minister if he allowed his back benchers to say what they think in our parliamentary committees.
The First Minister has in the past accused me of hypocrisy in raising the issue.
Members: Yes.
I agree—he has persisted in arguing that line lots of times. However, let me give him a real example of hypocrisy. I quote:
“The prospect of one person, especially Mr Murdoch, having more influence over the media in the UK would be a matter of concern, especially in Scotland.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, when Murdoch tried to take over ITV news. She was right then and I agree with her, so what made her change her mind? It cannot have been when she found out about phone hacking on an industrial scale. It could not have been when she found out that the phone of a murdered teenager was hacked. Surely it was not when she found out that Joan McAlpine’s phone was hacked. Did she change her mind when the First Minister told her to after he realised that he is the last person left defending Rupert Murdoch?
I condemn phone hacking regardless of who the victim is and who the perpetrators are. That has been my consistent position and it will continue to be my position. The most obvious explanation in answer to Johann Lamont’s question is that there were two different subjects. The first was about ITV, in which News Corporation did not have a controlling stake or major interests. The second was about BSkyB, in which News Corp already had a 39 per cent stake. Most people, including Ofcom, after assurances were given on Sky news, said that the issue would not be one of plurality—that is what Ofcom reported to the Government.
As for alliances with the Conservative Party, I have to say that Johann Lamont is on very weak ground. Not only do we have a weekly attempt to build the grand alliance with the Conservative Party in this Parliament but, of course, when it came to the budget, the Labour Party decided to vote with the Conservatives and against apprenticeships in Scotland.
If the First Minister was so concerned about the Milly Dowler issue, he certainly would not have sought to rehabilitate Rupert Murdoch by inviting him to tea at Bute house. Further, he would not have sought to dissemble on who was responsible on the issue when he wrote an article in the first edition of The Scottish Sun on Sunday.
Is it not the truth that the First Minister’s relationship with Rupert Murdoch is preventing any real scrutiny of News International’s activities in Scotland? When the phone hacking scandal broke, the First Minister claimed that it was a London problem. Well, it is now well and truly on the First Minister’s doorstep. It is time that we had a proper inquiry here in Scotland that investigates who else has been hacked and the full extent of the media influence over politicians and Government. A former First Minister has been hacked and an aide to the current First Minister has been hacked. Has the First Minister himself been hacked? Why is he blocking a Scottish inquiry into the activities of his old friend Rupert Murdoch?
Perhaps we can now get to the nub of the issue. It is time that the Parliament realised the full seriousness of what it is intended to do in Scotland. At present, we have a live police inquiry in Scotland, which has up to 40 officers working on it. That is a huge commitment of resource by Strathclyde Police.
I know that, because of the inaction in the past of the Metropolitan Police, people are sceptical about police inquiries into these matters, but there is no reason to be sceptical about the inquiry by Strathclyde Police. It is a live inquiry, huge resources are being devoted to it and the expectation is that the force will pursue the evidence without fear or favour and produce effective results.
There are implications for what should be done elsewhere, because a police inquiry has primacy. That means that any committee of this Parliament could not impinge on information to that inquiry, that any witness would have to be warned against incrimination and that anybody who was subject to adverse publicity in a parliamentary inquiry could quote article 6 of the European convention on human rights and use that as a defence in a future criminal inquiry. In other words, there could be a significant risk that a criminal investigation or inquiry would be compromised. It is vital that members understand that a real police inquiry is now taking place in Scotland—would that that had happened in 2005, when the issues were being carried through.
Even the Leveson inquiry, which is a judicial inquiry, has to bear in mind the existence of a live police inquiry. For example, when the chief constable of Strathclyde went before Leveson, he could not be questioned on all the aspects that are being considered by the current police inquiry. That is exactly why Leveson is looking at a range of issues that go beyond the criminal investigations.
I shall be absolutely delighted next month to go to Leveson and account for my contacts with News International and News Corp over the years. I am not certain that members of the Labour Party will have such a comfortable experience.
I do not think that even the First Minister himself believed that, never mind his back benchers. [Interruption.]
Order.
This is our great, modern, new Scottish Parliament. We see a Tory secretary of state being brought before the House of Commons, we see a Tory Prime Minister being brought before the House of Commons, where we also see a parliamentary inquiry. [Interruption.]
Order!
However, in the Scottish Parliament, the First Minister runs away from accountability.
These things are not incompatible, except in the First Minister’s own head. The First Minister told us that
“the people who live in Scotland are the best people to make decisions about their own future. Of that there can be no doubt”.—[Official Report, 25 January 2012; c 5603.]
Yet he is content to rely on a judicial inquiry in London and an inquiry that is being run by a parliamentary committee in London to determine the truth in Scotland. I look forward to hearing the First Minister answer a question under oath—indeed, I look forward to hearing him answer a question.
The question for the First Minister now is: why does he fear a parliamentary investigation here in Scotland? This started with Rupert Murdoch trying to take over BSkyB, but it turns out that he owns the Scottish National Party.
Johann Lamont gets her chance every week to ask me questions. The fact that she does not make a good job of it is hardly my responsibility.
I have already tried to explain the importance of police inquiries. Incidentally, Parliament can do exactly what it likes, but police inquiries take precedence on such issues.
I will now try to inform Johann Lamont about Leveson. The Leveson inquiry has been established under the Inquiries Act 2005, which means that the Scottish Government had to be consulted on the inquiry’s terms of reference—as, incidentally, did the other devolved Administrations. We tried to broaden and strengthen the terms of reference—I will put that correspondence with the UK Government in the Scottish Parliament information centre, so that every member can see it.
In common with other political leaders, I will be going to Leveson next month and will be able to account for all my meetings. I will account for every single one of the five meetings that I have had with Rupert Murdoch over the past five years. I am sure that Gordon Brown will be delighted to explain the 17 meetings that he had over three years and David Cameron the 18 meetings that he has had over the past five years. It will be the responsibility of every leading politician to explain their meetings because the Leveson inquiry is considering—under oath—relationships between the press and politicians.
Johann Lamont asked me why I believe that the Labour Party is guilty of hypocrisy on the issue. I will give her two explanations. First, the events that we are discussing took place on the Labour Party’s watch: it was in government in London and Edinburgh at the time. Secondly, the idea that, if the Labour Party complains hard enough, people will forget about 15 years of association with News International is for the birds. People look at the Labour Party and say, “Humbug and hypocrisy.”
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00637)
I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.
Let us simplify this a little. We know that the former First Minister Jack McConnell and his children were hacked. We know that the current First Minister’s close parliamentary aide was hacked. Parliament and the people of Scotland deserve to be told whether the First Minister was hacked.
The First Minister’s spokesman has repeatedly said that his boss will reveal all to the Leveson inquiry, but the First Minister reports to this Parliament, so this is his big opportunity. Dodging the question now, only to reveal all when he takes the stand later, will look like media manipulation of the very worst kind.
Is it the case that the First Minister was hacked but did not speak out to protect his new best pal, or did Rupert not need to bother tapping the First Minister’s phone because he was already on speed dial? Parliament is asking and Scotland is watching. Was the First Minister hacked?
As Ruth Davidson rightly says, I will go to the Leveson inquiry and will speak about a range of matters under oath. That is where I will give my evidence, which is exactly the right thing to do. The inquiry was set up on a judicial basis by cross-party agreement.
In her question, Ruth Davidson referred to media manipulation of the worst kind. The two words that came to my mind when she said that were “Andy Coulson”.
Let us talk of inquiries, then. [Interruption.] The First Minister wants to speak at the Leveson inquiry. We have a First Minister who is willing to speak at an English inquiry but not to hold one in Scotland. [Interruption.]
It is not an English inquiry.
An inquiry in England—[Interruption.]
Order!
The First Minister says that the police have primacy because their investigations are continuing, but the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at Westminster managed to hold an inquiry.
When it comes to the First Minister’s conduct, we in Scotland need to look deeper than Leveson allows. Therefore, I support calls for an inquiry in the Parliament, especially when the First Minister’s intervention appears to contravene a law of his own making. The Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 states:
“In particular, the First Minister … must not seek to influence particular judicial decisions through any special access to the judiciary”.
The United Kingdom Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport was acting in a quasi-judicial role on BSkyB, and the First Minister has admitted that he sought to influence him. Indeed, there were desperate calls between their offices.
Surely—[Interruption.]
Order. We will hear the member.
Surely, when there are questions as to whether a First Minister of Scotland may have acted in contravention of Scots law, a parliamentary inquiry is the minimum to which we are entitled.
I do not think that even Ruth Davidson’s back benchers believed that absolute mince of a question. For goodness’ sake, the First Minister of Scotland advocates jobs and investment for Scotland at every single opportunity, and that is what he should do.
As far as Leveson is concerned, it is not an English inquiry. If I had said that it was an English inquiry, members on the Tory benches would have been bouncing up and down, accusing me of racism, narrow nationalism and all that sort of thing. Surely Ruth Davidson has not lost her belief in the United Kingdom. Surely she knows that it is a cross-border inquiry. Surely she knows about and has read the input that the Scottish Government made as we tried to strengthen the inquiry’s terms of reference. I am sure that she will be on the edge of her seat when I give evidence to Leveson next month.
The parliamentary committee at Westminster had its inquiry into whether it was misled on previous occasions, but the Conservative Party does not seem to have grasped the essential point in all of this. Questions have been asked about the Prime Minister referring people to independent adjudication, but I point out that there is an independent adjudicator who has not once been asked to adjudicate on anything. The Conservatives actually pay an independent adjudicator on the ministerial code and he has not been called into action once. I have referred myself five times. The fact that every single one of the referrals got kicked out of the park is neither here nor there. I think that I have stood up to examination rather better than Ruth Davidson’s colleagues at Westminster.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00638)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The First Minister is responsible to this Parliament. Why will he not tell us whether his phone has been hacked? Despite all the excuses, we have seen the First Minister man the barricades to protect Rupert Murdoch from a Scottish inquiry. [Interruption.]
Order.
What has happened? A year ago, the First Minister would have called Leveson a London-based court with a judge who has only been to Scotland for the Edinburgh festival. Now he says that that court is the right place for a decision on Scotland. When did he switch from being a roaring Celtic lion to being a Celtic mouse in support of all things English—of London courts, Trafalgar Square and morris dancing? Why cannot the First Minister decide to back an inquiry in Scotland?
I am sure that, if I am called on to give a definition of English nationality, I will do rather better than Willie Rennie has just done.
Leveson was established under the Inquiries Act 2005. It is a cross-border inquiry, we had input to the terms of reference, and it was set up by all-party agreement. If we care to look back to that halcyon day, we see that all parties decided that a judicial inquiry was the correct route. Even the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said as he was speaking to the House of Commons that his deepest regret was that he did not set up a judicial inquiry when he was in office because the civil service told him not to do so. We all subscribe to Leveson as the way in which to pursue the issues. Having subscribed to it, does Willie Rennie not think that we should abide by that?
When Willie Rennie reads the correspondence and the input that we had to the terms of reference in an effort to strengthen and broaden them, he will see that we should have every confidence that Lord Justice Leveson will hold a thorough inquiry and come up with substantial recommendations. I do not see anything wrong in that. In fact, if I had taken a different course and said last year, “No—we’re not to have Leveson. We must set up our own Scottish judicial inquiry,” every single one of the Opposition parties would have been bouncing up and down and suggesting that we were not prepared to rise to the moment. I rose to the moment. Maybe Willie Rennie will try to do the same.
It does not really add up. The Scottish National Party has a view on absolutely everything from the price of dog food to the Americanisation of Hallowe’en. I cannot understand why the First Minister will not stand up and be counted on this. [Interruption.]
Order. We will hear the member.
Is it not the case that the First Minister has traded favours with Rupert Murdoch? Is it not the case that he defend him on phone hacking, stood up for him on BSkyB, and is now protecting him in Scotland? Is it not true that he is never on the side of ordinary people or the victims and always on the side of the rich and powerful?
On being on the side of ordinary people, I have just been reflecting on the interview that Willie Rennie conducted with Gary Robertson last week. I will give members a flavour of it. The statement
“Lib Dem MP”
and
“former Sky employee ... will contact Vince Cable to ask him about the economic and investment point of view of the take-over bids”
was put to Willie Rennie, and he was asked:
“so you’re saying that was Jim Tolson.”
Willie Rennie said:
“Yeah I’m sure it was Jim Tolson, Jim Tolson used to work at Sky, and we’ve got significant numbers of employees”
at
“Sky in Dunfermline”.
Gary Robertson then asked:
“So its ok for a Lib Dem MP to lobby”
a potential
“minister ... in the case of Vince Cable”,
but why was it
“not ok for the First Minister to do it?”
The answer was because The Sun was not supporting the Liberal Democrats. I have news for Willie Rennie: neither is anyone else.
As usual—[Interruption.]
Order.
As usual, the First Minister is selectively quoting. He knows full well that the reason why he was backing BSkyB and the reason why he was putting his interests above those of phone-hacking victims was because he wanted the support of The Sun. Why cannot he just admit that?
Because of the 6,300 jobs in Dunfermline, Livingston and Uddingston and the 2,000 jobs in Glasgow and elsewhere, which the Labour Party did not even know about last week. Those jobs are the priority. Maybe that is the difference that people might reflect on tomorrow: where the Opposition parties have different priorities, ours are jobs, jobs, jobs, not muck, muck, muck.
Local Democracy
4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the findings of the report by the Jimmy Reid Foundation, “The Silent Crisis: Failure and Revival in Local Democracy in Scotland”. (S4F-00647)
The report makes a valuable contribution to the debate on local democracy. The Scottish National Party Administration has tried a new partnership with local government over the past five years through the abolition of ring fencing and the focus on outcome agreements. The Minister for Local Government and Planning has led a reform of community planning partnerships alongside the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and will shortly consult on the community empowerment bill. Most recently, the partnership approach led to the hugely important joint agreement between the Government and COSLA to protect more than half a million people across Scotland from the United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal Government’s cuts to their council tax benefit.
I thank the First Minister for his answer and look forward to the details of the community empowerment bill. Alongside empowering local democracy, it is essential that local government works in partnership with the Government to protect the vulnerable and support the economy. Will the First Minister commit to continuing that partnership approach after tomorrow’s elections and include the Jimmy Reid Foundation’s thoughts in his work?
Yes, I will. I think that the progress of the partnership between councils and Government is vital for Scotland’s future. It will include 600 hours of free nursery education, the opportunities for all guarantee for every 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland and of course the vital concentration on family budgets and the knowledge that the council tax freeze will be worth £1,200 to each average family over the eight years that we intend to implement that freeze.
I declare an interest as a member of the board of the Scottish Left Review, the parent board of the Jimmy Reid Foundation. Is the First Minister minded to set up the commission that the report asks for to look into democracy at the local level? If so, will he ensure that it considers the democratic deficit of a lack of women’s participation in local government and ensure that any proposed change does not result in greater inequality between poorer and richer communities, which is also cited in the report?
A number of those issues were of course touched on in the late Campbell Christie’s report as well as in the report from the Jimmy Reid Foundation. I would be very happy to meet Elaine Smith to talk about the issues in more detail to see what areas of the report could be prioritised and those that would have cross-party agreement. If she is willing, I would be very happy to address things in that way.
Khalil Dale
5. To ask the First Minister what information the Scottish Government was given following the abduction of Khalil Dale. (S4F-00642)
The whole Parliament will want to place it on record that we utterly condemn the brutal murder of Khalil Dale, who devoted his life to helping others. He was a nurse and a highly experienced aid worker who had saved a huge number of lives in his long service in many areas with the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Mr Dale had friends across the planet. He regularly travelled back to Dumfries, where he was well known and well loved. My sincere condolences—and, I know, those of the whole Parliament—go to his family and friends and particularly to his fiancée, Anne, and his brother Ian at what is a very sad time.
Mr Dale was abducted on 5 January 2012. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice told the chamber on 26 January, Alistair Burt, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, met the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs on 19 January and informed her that the International Committee of the Red Cross was in the lead. Unfortunately and tragically, the organisation’s efforts to secure Mr Dale’s release did not succeed, and the tragedy that we learned about this week ensued.
I thank the First Minister for his reply and associate myself with his comments about my former constituent. I appreciated the need for discretion about the information that was made publicly available while the Red Cross attempted to secure Mr Dale’s release and I appreciate the continuing need not to allow publicity to interfere with solving this brutal crime. However, can the First Minister provide any comfort to Mr Dale’s family and friends about the actions that were taken after 26 January? Does he have any information about who might have been responsible for Mr Dale’s abduction?
How can we in Scotland assist in solving the crime? For example, has consideration been given to providing a reward for information that leads to the successful prosecution of the perpetrators?
The Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs spoke to Alistair Burt as recently as this morning, when he confirmed that the FCO and the International Committee of the Red Cross worked tirelessly with their collective resources to secure Khalil Dale’s release. In the light of an atrocity and a tragedy, it is easy to say that things could have been done differently, but we as the Scottish Government have no reason to suppose that the Foreign Office did not act in what it saw as Khalil Dale’s best interests in allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross to take the lead, as that organisation requested.
Fiona Hyslop was assured that Mr Dale’s family are being kept fully informed through the FCO as arrangements are made for recovering his body. A number of parts of that information are obviously confidential, but that issue was raised and is being dealt with.
The responsibility that was claimed was well publicised and publicly declared. We have no reason to suppose that that assessment was not accurate. We will look carefully at any contribution that we can make to help the security of Scottish aid workers who work internationally.
As the member will be aware, this is not the first such tragedy in recent months. While the impact on family and friends is of course deeply felt, there should be admiration and respect across the whole Scottish community for the fact that we have citizens who are prepared to put their lives on the line to help others across the planet.
Empty Commercial Properties
6. To ask the First Minister how many empty commercial properties the Scottish Government predicts will no longer be empty as a direct consequence of the proposals in the Local Government Finance (Unoccupied Properties etc) (Scotland) Bill. (S4F-00648)
Empty properties are a blight on high streets across Scotland. Our proposed reform of empty property rates relief will introduce an incentive to bring such premises back into economic use and regenerate our high streets. The reform will raise an estimated additional £18 million a year for the Scottish budget over two years. That is a limited additional cost to business in comparison with the £1 billion cost of the United Kingdom Government’s recent VAT rise.
I thank the First Minister for his answer but, unfortunately, it had nothing to do with the question that I asked, so I will ask the question again and I will simplify it. How many empty commercial properties will no longer be empty as a consequence of his bill?
Let me simplify the answer. I know that Gavin Brown pays close attention to the Federation of Small Businesses, which has consistently argued that the measure would be an incentive to bring properties back into active use.
I hope and believe that Gavin Brown will pay more attention to the views of the Federation of Small Businesses in the future. There is an assumption within the papers that the number of premises will be 5,500—which provides an interesting contrast. I am sorry that my answer to the question is so disappointing to Gavin Brown that he is chirping away quite merrily. We should contrast that figure of 5,500 with the fact that, in his region of Lothian, 10,800 premises are benefiting from the small business bonus, which has been introduced, maintained and championed by the SNP Government.