First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2661)
Later today, I will take the opportunity to sign a pledge marking the fifth anniversary of the co-operation agreement between Scotland and Malawi. Thousands of Scots have worked hard to support Malawi’s development and to improve the lives of many of the world’s poorest people. In the past five years, the Scottish Government has supported some 207 projects, involving £13 million. I know that all members will join me in celebrating the contribution that Scotland has made to alleviating poverty and building capacity in Malawian communities. I also extend my thanks to my predecessor Jack McConnell for his support for and continuing commitment to the project. [Applause.]
Yesterday, at the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, we heard about the proposed cuts in Scotland’s further and higher education sectors. Alastair Sim, director of Universities Scotland, said that cuts of 16 per cent will cause severe damage to the sector. He said that “urgent work” was required now to bring forward a workable scheme for Scotland. The education secretary says that he hopes that a funding solution can be found by next August. Is that the First Minister’s idea of urgent action?
The timescale for bringing forward a Scottish solution on the issue is exactly the same as the timescale south of the border. The dramatic increase in student fees that the coalition Government south of the border is proposing—up to £9,000—will be introduced in the academic year in two years’ time, which will be exactly the same academic year in which the Scottish alternative will be deployed. So the timescale south of the border for what is euphemistically called the new funding stream—the punitive introduction of extraordinary tuition fees—is exactly the same as the timescale for the Scottish alternative, which will seek to find a better answer for Scotland.
On the speculation about what will be able to be done in the coming year in the Scottish budget, I point out that the comprehensive spending review outlined a cut of 40 per cent in university funding south of the border over the CSR period and a cut of 25 per cent for colleges. If we extrapolate the figures for Scotland through the consequentials, we get the sort of figures that are being talked about. I hope that everybody in the Parliament hopes that we can do better than that. However, I should say to Iain Gray that the first cut in university funding did not occur in the current financial year or in the CSR; instead, it was the Mandelson cut of earlier this year, which already put the university and college sector south of the border in a cuts position.
Linda McTavish of Scotland’s Colleges said:
“there are going to be colleges across Scotland that will fail.”
Tony Axon from the University and College Union said that 4,000 jobs could go. Everyone told the First Minister that the crisis was coming. It is more than two years since we told him that he needed a review of higher education funding. Although he and I might agree that we do not like the answers that are coming forward south of the border, at least answers are being brought forward. That is not the timetable that we are following here. Why is the First Minister just starting to think about a Scottish answer to the problem now?
Iain Gray should have listened to the answer to the previous question. The Scottish alternative will be introduced in exactly the same timescale as that for the proposals south of the border. The difference is that we will find a different Scottish solution to an extraordinarily difficult position that was started by the previous United Kingdom Government and greatly accentuated by the current one. I see Labour members shaking their heads. Who proposed removing the ceiling on the top-up fee south of the border? It was the previous Labour Government. The timescale to which we are working for the Scottish solution is exactly the same timescale as is being proposed south of the border.
At some stage, Iain Gray will have to see that kicking things into the long grass with his commission was not the answer. We will bring forward a solution on exactly the same timescale as the timescale south of the border.
Last week, the Labour Party published a document that proposed £1.7 billion of additional spending commitments, set against a reduction in the Scottish budget for next year, forced by Westminster, of £1.3 billion. No amount of commissions or kicking into the long grass could solve the quandary of the Labour Party spending like there is no tomorrow when next year’s Scottish budget is being cut by London.
The First Minister needs to listen to the questions, too. We suggested a review almost two years ago. If he had held one, we would have a solution now. Tony Axon said yesterday that if we had had a review, we would not be in this situation today.
I have listened to the education secretary talk about his timetable—there is a summit this month, a green paper next month, a leisurely stroll through the ideas and perhaps a solution next year. One would almost think that the First Minister knew that it will be someone else’s problem by then. Does he not understand that higher and further education funding is a problem now? Does he not see that it is he who is kicking the problem into the long grass on the other side of an election?
If Iain Gray had an answer to the problem, he would not be suggesting a review; he would be telling us what his proposal was. He has made bold proposals, in that statesmanlike way that we have come to imagine, to increase the council tax, and then he said that he did not want to increase the council tax—and then he said that he would increase the council tax, but would cap it. It is reasonable to assume that if Iain Gray had a Scottish answer to the alternative that is being suggested south of the border of a 40 per cent cut in university funding and a 25 per cent cut in college funding, he would not come to this chamber with his great idea of a review; he would be telling us what his proposal was. Now he has one more question. It is a question, but perhaps he will give us a wee inkling of what Labour’s policy is in that direction. [Interruption.]
Order.
That is right; I have one more question, because this is First Minister’s question time. For as long as the First Minister sits in that seat in the chamber, the question will be, “What is his answer?” Of course, if he had one we would not believe it anyway. It is not just Nick Clegg who has broken his promises to students; Alex Salmond dumped his promise to cancel student debt. He left Scottish students with less to live on than students in the rest of Britain. He abolished the graduate endowment, and last night his MP Pete Wishart said, “Of course we can bring the graduate endowment back.” The First Minister cut university places by 10 per cent and now he does not know what to do.
Presiding Officer, you were at the Scottish reformation reception last night at which the First Minister reminded the audience that our ancient universities were founded by papal bull. Now they are being jeopardised by Alex Salmond’s bull. Will the First Minister show some leadership and introduce his plans for higher education right now?
If Iain Gray is going to become a statesman, he will have to recognise that it is best not to telegraph his jokes so far in advance.
Iain Gray will have to confront the position that, unless we want meekly to go down the road set south of the border—a road started on by the previous Labour Government and Peter Mandelson and now accentuated by the Con-Dem coalition—we will have to find the Scottish answer. It is not the case that university funding has been cut in Scotland; we have record university and college funding in Scotland, and far more than the previous Labour Administration was prepared to spend. When we reintroduced free education—incidentally, I tell Iain Gray that that was the point of my comments last night—we did it in the teeth of Labour opposition in this Parliament.
As we bring forward that solution, we know that the answer is not just to cope with the Con-Dem cuts without finding a way forward for Scotland. We know that the real answer for Scotland is to get control of our economy, so that we can grow revenue and invest in the future of this country, instead of being imprisoned in the Westminster straitjacket in which Iain Gray, for all his bull, is content to let Scotland suffer.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2657)
I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.
Alex Salmond and his Scottish National Party colleagues have always been passionate and unquestioning supporters of the European convention on human rights and its incorporation into Scots law. In the light of subsequent events—most recently around the right of prisoners to vote—does he now regret that?
No. The European convention on human rights is something to which we should subscribe. However, I think that this Administration and this jurisdiction should be in exactly the same position vis-à-vis the convention as any other country.
I am interested in Annabel Goldie’s question, because, as I understand it, it is the Conservative-led Government that is now proposing to introduce the right of prisoners to vote. Presumably, if the Conservative-led Government had a different answer, it would not now be proposing that.
The Prime Minister made it clear in the House of Commons yesterday that the prospect of votes for prisoners is sickening. He said:
“It makes me feel physically ill”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 November 2010; Vol 517; c 921.]
I think that that sentiment is widely shared. He also made it clear that this is just another example of the mess that the coalition Government is having to clear up.
The First Minister faces a political paradox—a very inconvenient truth—because, in fact, he does not want many of those prisoners in prison in the first place; he wants convicts in the community. One can just see him outside our Scottish jails, brandishing a placard that says, “Freedom! Vote SNP for a soft-touch Scotland.” On prisoners’ votes, the First Minister should mop up his crocodile tears.
I will make a constructive suggestion. Regrettably, some prisoners will have to be given the right to vote and the UK Government is considering how to limit the damage, but surely in Scotland we could take some interim measures. Could guidance be given now to our Scottish judges that when they impose a prison sentence they should make clear whether the prisoner retains or loses the right to vote?
On the specific question that Annabel Goldie asks, we had better see what proposals come from the Government that is actually in charge of the issue before we give directions to the Scottish judiciary.
I am amazed by Annabel Goldie’s totally extraordinary comments and attack on our incredibly sensible policy of limiting short-term sentences in Scotland, because that policy has been endorsed by none other an authority than Kenneth Clarke, who, last time I checked, was in charge of these things south of the border and who, last time I checked, was still a Conservative MP. I know that he is enthusiastically backed in that policy by his coalition partners in London—even if they are at variance on other policies, such as tuition fees.
I do not understand why Annabel Goldie wants to persuade me to depart from what seems an entirely sensible policy in Scotland when she cannot persuade her own Lord Chancellor south of the border to depart from exactly that Scottish policy. Indeed, Ken Clarke has been supported by none other than Ed Miliband in the move against short-term sentences.
On the SNP’s track record, I remind Annabel Goldie that we now have the lowest crime rate in Scotland for 32 years, which seems to be some achievement.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2672)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
One of the issues that could be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet is the Government’s responsibility for ferry services around Scotland. When the Scottish National Party was in opposition, it promised to cut quickly a pragmatic deal to give the people of Dunoon the ferry service that they need. Five years later, the people of Dunoon are still waiting. How long will they wait?
As Tavish Scott well knows, the review of ferry services is on-going. He will recognise the substantial increase that there has been in the budget for ferry services over the past three and a half years. I suppose that he will also have some sort of thought that, given the draconian cuts to Scottish public expenditure to which his party is now signed up, the traditional Liberal Democrat tactic of the past three and a half years of asking for additional spending on everything may not be as apposite as it once was.
I am not asking for more money; I am asking the Government to do what it is meant to do. The new ferry contract must be in place by the end of next June, otherwise the directors of the existing service will find themselves forced by the Scottish Government to risk huge penalties. They may decide to cancel the ferry, so local people who were promised action by the SNP will have no ferry on that route.
The truth is that the SNP has no intention of getting the tender out before next year’s elections. It will put the ferry service at risk and leave local people in the lurch. We have had four years of the SNP doing absolutely nothing. What is more important to the SNP—securing that ferry service for local people or manipulating the whole process for electoral advantage?
The difference between Tavish Scott and me is that the Government is trying to secure the best possible ferry service for local people. That does not involve taking the action that he wants to rush into, which could well result in exactly the opposite consequence.
I welcome Tavish Scott’s self-imposed declaration that he will no longer ask the Scottish Government for more money in his questions. I intend to hold him to that as we go through First Minister’s question time after First Minister’s question time. The next time that he stands up and asks for more money, I will remind him of this First Minister’s question time. I am going to ring a bell and tell him that he is out of order—with the Presiding Officer’s permission, of course.
The First Minister will be aware of the tragic death of Mandy Mathieson in Tomintoul last month. Press reports indicate that Ms Mathieson had a heart attack and that, although there was an ambulance 800yd away, it did not attend. Will the First Minister investigate the incident as a matter of urgency in order to provide answers for Mandy’s family? Why did local staff not attend, and why was there an apparent delay in alerting the air ambulance? Will he also review the cover, skills and employment practices of the Scottish Ambulance Service in remote and rural areas to ensure that they are fit for purpose?
My sympathies and those of the whole chamber are with the relatives of the woman who has died. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has received the report on the incident from the Scottish Ambulance Service, including details of the action that is being taken to investigate the circumstances fully. The ambulance technician concerned has been suspended by the Scottish Ambulance Service and an internal investigation is under way. The Scottish Ambulance Service has also asked the Health Professions Council to investigate.
The member will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to comment further on the circumstances of a particular case, however tragic, while such investigations are under way. Nevertheless, I assure her that the investigations will be thorough and will come to a conclusion, which will be spelled out to the chamber. I know that she and members across the chamber would not want this tragic incident to deflect in any way from our admiration of and support for the work that the Scottish Ambulance Service does throughout the communities of Scotland.
With reference to the First Minister’s answer to my colleague, Annabel Goldie, does he not appreciate that one of the reasons why the crime rate in Scotland is lower is the fact that more of the bad guys are in jail? That fall in the crime rate will be at risk if the Government persists with its policy of stopping locking them up.
No. One of the reasons why the crime rate in Scotland is falling is the fact that there are more than 1,000 extra police officers on the streets in Scotland. Not only do we have the lowest crime rate in 32 years; we also have record clear-up rates of crime in Scotland.
As the former leader of the Conservative party in the Scottish Parliament, David McLetchie is suffering from the same dilemma as the party’s present leader—indeed, the same dilemma that will be bequeathed to any future leader of the Conservative party in this chamber. It is impossible to retain any credibility in the actions that they suggest the Government should take when their own ministers—no doubt in admiration for the dramatic decline in crime rates in Scotland—are pursuing the exact same policies as we are pursuing. David McLetchie should have a word in Ken Clarke’s ear. Before Mr McLetchie comes to the chamber and attempts to persuade us to depart from a policy that is obviously working in practice, he should first see whether he can reconcile his party’s irreconcilable positions.
Alcohol (Harm to Society)
4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the study by the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs that placed alcohol above heroin and crack cocaine in terms of the harm that it causes to society. (S3F-2676)
The study to which Michael Matheson refers reinforces the importance of tackling alcohol misuse, which is responsible for a significant amount of harm being caused to the drinker, those around them and society as a whole. Those are the reasons why we placed our proposals for a minimum price of 45p per unit of alcohol at the centre of the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill, as part of our wider framework for tackling alcohol misuse. We all are agreed that the cost of alcohol is key in terms of consumption levels and yet to date no credible alternative proposals for tackling the low cost of alcohol have been put forward.
The total cost of alcohol misuse is estimated at £3.56 billion per year in Scotland. That equates to £900 for every adult in Scotland. It is clearly time for bold action to turn around Scotland’s relationship with alcohol.
This Parliament now has an opportunity to show leadership by supporting our minimum pricing proposals—proposals that will benefit individuals and the country as a whole—at stage 3 of the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill, which I understand comes to the chamber next Wednesday.
The First Minister is right to point out that the Opposition parties in the chamber have brought forward no credible alternative on pricing other than to say that they hope that the United Kingdom Government implements massive duty rises on what they call problem drinks.
I draw the First Minister’s attention to recent claims in an Institute for Fiscal Studies report that it is not possible at present under European Union directives for all alcohol duty to be set according to the number of alcohol units. It is therefore impossible for the UK Government to achieve the benefits of minimum pricing via taxation, as the Opposition parties had hoped.
Does the First Minister agree that the only meaningful action that this Parliament can take to tackle the issue of cheaply available alcohol is for it to take its responsibilities seriously and vote for minimum pricing next week?
I agree with Michael Matheson: the scale of the problem that we face means that this Parliament should deal with alcohol misuse issues now. Apart from the issues that he highlights, there is, of course, a history of retailers who instead of passing duty increases on to the customer simply pass them back to producers. Also, the underlying duty arrangements are unfair to our spirits industry at present.
I would have more respect for the position that some Opposition parties in the chamber enunciate if they proposed or did one of two things. First, if they proposed that excise duties should come under the responsibility of this Parliament, their policies might make some sense. They are not proposing that. Secondly, if their parties at Westminster were to take forward the excise duty policies that they suggest might be employed to tackle low pricing in Scotland, their arguments would have credibility. Given that one of the first decisions of the coalition Government was to reduce duty on cider, we will wait a long time to see that coherent policy being produced from London.
The First Minister will be aware that, in highlighting the problem of alcohol abuse, the study said that action on pricing needed to be taken across the UK. I invite him to consider the very credible proposals that the three main Opposition parties in the chamber have put forward on how to tackle the issue with alcohol. Given that there is no price differential north and south of the border, we need to look at other factors to explain drinking behaviour in Scotland. I invite the First Minister to join the growing consensus in the chamber that we should take action on pricing across the UK. [Interruption.]
Order.
What Jackie Baillie describes is not a growing consensus across the chamber but an excuse for inaction and for this Parliament to duck its responsibilities. As I outlined, the London Government made its initial decision on cider, yet cider is one of the products that is most in dispute.
Given that we will wait a long time for action from London, if Jackie Baillie believes that action on duty is the way to proceed, at what stage will she reconcile the irreconcilable by announcing her support for the transfer of those powers to this Parliament? Then again, if she advocated that, she would not just be hoping that somebody else would do something. I would be interested to know the whole list of policies on which Jackie Baillie is waiting for action from the Conservative-Liberal coalition. It would be responsible to say that this Parliament should fulfil its responsibility to the people of Scotland and should act now.
Power Stations
5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on new, non-replacement, fossil fuel-fired power stations. (S3F-2673)
The Scottish Government believes that those power stations must be fully decarbonised by 2030. That is in line with advice from the United Kingdom’s expert Committee on Climate Change and consistent with our own targets under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
Scotland has massive carbon capture and storage potential, which, along with our renewables industry, means that it is at the forefront of Europe’s low-carbon energy revolution. The Scottish Government is committed to developing the renewables potential, which is why we raised the renewables target from 50 per cent to 80 per cent by 2020. We also accelerated the rate of approval for projects, which now stands at 36—double the rate under the previous Administration. I hope that Sarah Boyack still agrees with me that her party’s argument that we should focus instead on wasting resources on dangerous, expensive and unreliable nuclear power is no answer at all.
I thank the First Minister for his answer, although—as ever—he did not answer the question that I asked. I will try again.
We all know that new, unabated coal-fired power stations will make it much harder for us to cut our carbon emissions, as we must do if we are to achieve our 42 per cent climate change targets. That is why the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition and even some of the First Minister’s own members are unhappy with new, unabated coal. Will he join Scottish Labour in ruling out new, non-replacement, fossil fuel-fired power stations—yes or no?
I am really puzzled that Sarah Boyack does not think that there was an answer to the question. Let me repeat what I said to her.
Members: Ah.
Order.
The Scottish Government believes that those power stations must be fully decarbonised by 2030. She will have read the stipulations—
New ones.
I heard Andy Kerr’s interjection in which he said that I was talking about new ones. That is because, in her question, Sarah Boyack asked me about new, non-replacement, fossil fuel-fired power stations. Even Andy Kerr does not usually criticise me for answering the question, as opposed to anything else.
According to Sarah Boyack’s question, we are talking about the policy on new, non-replacement, fossil fuel-fired power stations. The answer is that those power stations must be fully decarbonised by 2030. That is not only a sensible policy for this Government but the same policy as was enunciated by the great Ed Miliband when he was secretary of state at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
I know that Sarah Boyack’s career is already in jeopardy because of her principled opposition to nuclear power but, if she conflicts with her new leader, that jeopardy will become a double jeopardy. Given my admiration for her, I would not like one of the few principled people on the Labour benches to be relegated even further.
If we leave aside the bombastic rhetoric of the last reply—
Sit down, then. [Laughter.]
Order.
The member really should not become confused by listening to his own rhetoric and the echo.
Members: Hear, hear.
The Scottish Government insisted on including new, fossil fuel-fired power stations in the national planning framework 2. Why did it do that when the report “The Power of Scotland Renewed—Clean, green energy for the nation’s future” shows that it is entirely plausible that no large-scale, fossil fuel-fired generation capacity need remain online by 2030?
I do not agree that the national planning framework does what has been suggested, as Ross Finnie would well know if he studied the document carefully. We have gone down the route that the Committee on Climate Change proposed to us, which was to ensure that any new fossil fuel-fired power station would be carbon-capture enabled and fully decarbonised by 2030. That is totally consistent with our Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 targets, which Ross Finnie also knows are the most ambitious in the world.
Students (Cross-border Flow)
6. To ask the First Minister, further to the reported comment of the “source close to the Scottish Government” in The Sunday Times that the Scottish Government was in the business of controlling the cross-border flow of English students coming to study in Scotland, whether the Scottish Government plans to extend this control to Welsh and Northern Irish students. (S3F-2671)
Elizabeth Smith has been in politics long enough to know that, if The Sunday Times had had a comment from the Scottish Government, it would not have referred to a
“source close to the Scottish Government”,
who could even have been her—well, perhaps it could not have been her, but it certainly could have been one of a wide range of people.
Scottish universities have always welcomed students from around the world and the Government wants that cosmopolitan character to be maintained. Of course, the Conservatives are about to introduce £9,000 tuition fees in England, in the hope that that will make up for the massive cut of 40 per cent in university teaching funding over the next four years south of the border. That is why we need to find a Scottish solution. I hope that Elizabeth Smith will be at the forefront of advocating something rather better than what her party advocates south of the border.
If it is incorrect to say that that spokesman had anything to do with the Scottish Government, is it correct to say that the Scottish Government has considered plans on how to make students from the rest of the United Kingdom pay, although it is still silent on what will happen to Scottish students? Does the First Minister agree that that is a Scottish Government guddle that is in no one’s interests—least of all those of our universities and students, who cry out for leadership on the issue?
Perhaps I pre-empted Elizabeth Smith too much. I am not sure whether she understands that the fee level for students in Scotland—whether they are from Scotland or elsewhere in the UK—is £1,820. The difference is that the Scottish Government takes responsibility for Scottish students’ fees. It is of course open to any funding authority south of the border to do the same for English students who come to Scotland. That is the present position.
I was not absolutely clear from Sarah Smith’s supplementary question whether she fully appreciated—[Interruption.] I was not totally convinced by Elizabeth Smith’s supplementary question that she fully appreciated the current position, as opposed to any suggestions that she might make.
I hope that, if Sarah—if Elizabeth Smith forgives me for changing her name, for which I apologise profusely—[Interruption.]
Order.
If Elizabeth Smith forgives me for that, perhaps she will agree to change the Conservative party’s policies, which threaten the students of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
12:33
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
14:15
On resuming—