Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02769)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland—and maybe a bit of last-minute campaigning.
Before the 2010 general election, the First Minister’s predecessor encouraged people across the United Kingdom to deny a Scottish Labour Prime Minister a majority. Can the First Minister tell us what happened next?
I recall Labour’s message to the people of Scotland in the 2010 election being that they should vote Labour to keep out the Tories. What happened next? Scotland voted Labour and the Tories got in. My message tomorrow is this: vote SNP to make Scotland’s voice heard and then use that voice for better politics at Westminster.
Presiding Officer, I will tell you what happened next: we got a Tory Government that imposed austerity on our country and the Scottish National Party stood by while working parents had to rely on charity to feed their kids. The First Minister might not like the truth, but it is a fact that Alex Salmond spent the previous general election telling people to vote against Gordon Brown’s Labour Government. That was a Labour Government led by a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish chancellor.
In this election, unsurprisingly, the First Minister is telling people in Scotland to vote for the SNP and against Labour. She is also urging people in Wales to vote for Plaid Cymru and against Labour, and she is calling on people in England to vote for the Greens and against Labour. For someone who says that she wants a Labour Government, she has a funny way of showing it.
I will ask the First Minister a very simple question. What is the best way to get a Labour Government? Is it to vote for or against Labour tomorrow?
I am not sure that this is Kezia Dugdale’s intention—I have to assume that it is not—but she is making my point for me. In 2010, Scotland ended up with a Tory-led Government that has done real damage to Scotland and to individuals and communities across Scotland. Here’s the thing: Scotland voting Labour in 2010 did not stop that Tory Government. It did not protect Scotland against that Tory Government or the bedroom tax, just as Labour MPs in the past could not protect Scotland against the Tory poll tax.
Tomorrow, we should do something different. We should vote SNP tomorrow to send a big team of SNP MPs to Westminster to stand up for Scotland in a way that Labour MPs never have, to make Scotland’s voice heard and to ensure that it is a voice for better policies such as an end to austerity, whether that austerity is proposed by the Tories or by Labour. The question for Labour is this: if we wake up on Friday morning with an anti-Tory majority across the United Kingdom—as I hope we do—will Labour be willing to work with the SNP to kick the Tories out, or will Labour stand back and watch David Cameron get right back into Downing Street?
The First Minister says that she wants the Tories out, but she is fooling no one. She said that the SNP would defeat a Labour budget, but she could do that only with Tory votes. Her deputy has said that the SNP could defeat a Labour Queen’s speech, but it could do that only with Tory votes. We have been here before, in this very chamber, when the SNP voted with the Tories against the living wage; when the SNP voted with the Tories against a rent cap; and when the SNP voted with the Tories against a ban on exploitative zero-hours contracts. Why, when we were on the side of working people in Scotland, was the First Minister on the side of the Tories?
Again, for the avoidance of any doubt, let me make it clear: if a Labour Government were to introduce a budget that sought to continue Tory austerity and damage the most vulnerable people in our society, SNP MPs at Westminster would not vote for that budget, because we want an end to austerity. That would not bring down the Government, but it would send it away to think again and come back with a better budget—a budget that lifted people out of poverty and protected our national health service and our public services. That is the value of having a big team of SNP MPs at Westminster: we can lock the Tories out of government and then ensure that they are not simply replaced by a Labour Tory-lite Government, but by something better.
I remind Kezia Dugdale that, last Thursday, Ed Miliband said on live television that he would rather not have a Labour Government than work with the SNP. Will Kezia Dugdale confirm—I am asking her a direct question—that, if there is an anti-Tory majority on Friday morning, Labour will work with the SNP to get the Tories out? Or will Labour stand back and watch David Cameron waltz back into Downing Street?
The First Minister has a cheek to describe the Labour Party as Tory lite. There would be more progressive policies in the first week of an Ed Miliband Government than there have been in eight years of an SNP Government.
David Cameron has said that he needs just one more seat than Labour across the United Kingdom to stay in office—one seat. We can vote Labour on Thursday and start the process of changing our country on Friday—abolishing the need for food banks, calling time on zero-hour contracts, investing in our NHS, guaranteeing jobs for our young people, increasing taxes for the rich and sharing that wealth across the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the change that people will get only with a Labour Government. Is it not the case that if people want a Labour Government they must vote for Labour tomorrow?
The simple fact of arithmetic is this: if on Friday morning there are more Labour and SNP MPs in the House of Commons than there are Tory MPs, the only way that David Cameron and the Tories will get back into 10 Downing Street is if Ed Miliband and Labour hold the door open for them. I am clear that, if there is an anti-Tory majority, the SNP will want to work with others to keep the Tories out.
We have heard all this from Labour before. Kezia Dugdale talks about zero-hours contracts. I agree that we must get rid of exploitative zero-hours contracts. Tony Blair promised that 20 years ago and, under his Government, zero-hours contracts increased by 40 per cent.
It is not enough for Scotland just to get rid of the Tories tomorrow—of course we want to do that—but we must ensure that the Tories are replaced by something that is better than the Tories. That is what a big team of SNP MPs can secure: an end to the Tories and a better, bolder and more progressive Government to go in their place.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02774)
No plans in the near future.
We know who the First Minister wants to be Prime Minister on Friday morning: Ed Miliband, the man Alex Salmond described as
“the weakest Labour leader I’ve seen in my political career.”
For once, I agree with Alex Salmond. Why does the First Minister want the weakest Labour leader in recent history to become Prime Minister? What are the top three things that make him the right man for the job?
I’ll tell you the top thing—he’s no a Tory. I want the Tories out of office. David Cameron’s Tory-led Government—this is a serious point—has been devastating for vulnerable people across our country. It has pushed more children into poverty, undermined our public services and held back our economy. I want to see the back of it tomorrow.
Just as I have said to Kezia Dugdale, I do not want David Cameron’s Tory Government to be replaced by Ed Miliband’s Tory-lite Government. I want a better Government for Scotland. The only way that we can make Scotland’s voice heard tomorrow—the only way we can put an end to austerity, with protection for public services and a stronger economy right at the heart of the Westminster agenda, is to vote for the Scottish National Party. Here is the truth: the more seats the SNP wins tomorrow, the more power Scotland will have.
If I had a pound for every time the First Minister has said “Tory” today, I would be on her wages. That was it—that is the reason she wants to put Ed Miliband into government. It is because of her hatred of the Tories.
I want people to vote positively tomorrow: for an economic recovery that has created 100 Scottish jobs every day since we came to power, for a plan that has left fewer children in workless households than we have ever seen, and for a Government that will always back the union, just as Scots voted for last year.
Of course, Nicola Sturgeon does not want to put Ed Miliband in Downing Street because she thinks that it will push independence further away; it is because she thinks that it will bring independence closer and that she can hold a weak Labour Party to ransom and divide our nation for evermore.
Nicola Sturgeon and I both know that there will be no post-election deals between our two parties, so is it not the case that, whereas her party might be the party of independence, the Scottish Conservatives are the only party that people can trust to safeguard the union?
Ruth Davidson has perhaps stumbled across something. It was interesting, was it not, that Kezia Dugdale did not talk about independence today. This must be the first day in the election campaign when Labour members have not talked about independence. Perhaps they have read the reports in the papers today about the research carried out by the University of Edinburgh, which found that, when Labour brings up the issue of independence, it increases support for the SNP. The researcher has said that making independence an issue
“penalises ... Labour, because voters perceive it as closer to the other unionist parties”.
In other words, it reminds voters of the Labour-Tory alliance. Tomorrow we have an opportunity to do something better for Scotland.
Where I will try to find a note of agreement with Ruth Davidson is on this point. I agree that people should vote positively tomorrow—for a strong voice for Scotland in Westminster, for an end to austerity, for stronger investment in our public services and for a fairer economy that works for the many, not the few. That is why I say to everybody in every corner of Scotland, regardless of how they voted in the referendum and even if they have never voted SNP before, that tomorrow is our opportunity to come together as a country to make our voice heard in Westminster louder than it has ever been heard before.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02770)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
I have put the case that the Liberal Democrats stand for stability and unity—[Laughter.]
Order. Let us hear Mr Rennie.
—for our strong economy, anchored in the centre ground; for investment in education, the national health service and mental health; and for respect for the result of the referendum last year. In contrast, the First Minister’s evasion and avoidance show that a vote for her party is a vote for the second referendum party—or can she now at last rule out a second referendum for a generation?
I am very grateful to Willie Rennie for giving me the opportunity again to directly address the people of Scotland on this issue. The election tomorrow is not about independence, even if—and I am not making a prediction—the Scottish National Party wins every seat in Scotland. That is not a mandate for independence or a second referendum. Tomorrow is an opportunity to make Scotland’s voice heard, and we need Scotland’s voice to be heard louder than ever before.
Willie Rennie may try to make that positive case for the Liberal Democrats, and good luck to him as he tries to do so but, unfortunately for him and his party, people know that, over the past five years, his party has been standing shoulder to shoulder with a Conservative Government damaging the poorest in our society. That is why I do not think that the verdict of the Scottish people tomorrow on the Scottish Liberal Democrats will be a particularly happy one for Willie Rennie.
That is very interesting, but that is not what the First Minister said to The Guardian this morning. She was very clear:
“I’m not going to rule it out”.
That is not what she said before last September. She expects people to believe her this time. We know that her colleagues are on manoeuvres for a second referendum, but the First Minister can sort this out now. [Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Mr Rennie.
The First Minister has the capacity to show leadership on this. Will she rule out serving as First Minister in a Scottish Government that holds a second referendum? Will she rule that out?
From what I have seen this week, it has been Ruth Davidson on manoeuvres, sitting astride her tank, which I have to say—albeit that we are in opposing political parties—was a splendid photo call. I am not sure that it will win many votes, but there you go.
Mr Rennie is clutching at straws. As right now we have less than 24 hours before the opening of polls in this unique—perhaps watershed—general election, I am happy to let the Scottish people have their say. I am very clear about what this election is and is not about and I will let people in Scotland judge. This election is not about independence. That is why it is an opportunity for people, regardless of how they voted in the referendum and regardless of how they voted in past elections. It is an opportunity for us to unite as a country—for us to come together and make our voice heard. [Interruption.]
Order.
Only if people vote SNP tomorrow will Scotland’s voice be heard loud and clear in Westminster. We will then have a team of SNP members of Parliament standing up for an end to austerity and for stronger public services. That is the opportunity that we have as a country tomorrow—let us grab it.
Universities (Access)
To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government is making on widening access to university for young people from the most deprived communities. (S4F-02776)
In the programme for government, I set a long-term target for the Government and our universities to eradicate the inequality in access to higher education so that a child who is born today in one of our most deprived communities will, by the time he or she leaves school, have the same chance of going to university as a child who is born in one of our least deprived communities.
That is why this year we doubled funding to the impact for access fund, which encourages people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university. Our commitment to free tuition benefits more than 120,000 undergraduate students every year, and since 2007 there has been a 40 per cent increase in the proportion of 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds being accepted to university.
I thank the First Minister for that answer and welcome the progress that is being made in getting students from less-well-off areas into higher education, while at the same time agreeing with her that there is still much more to do. As part of that on-going effort, is the First Minister able to provide me with details on the programme of work that the widening access commission will now undertake?
Stewart Maxwell is absolutely correct when he says that there is much more to do. I am not in any way complacent about this; I genuinely want every young person in Scotland to have the same chance to go to university. I want young people from our most deprived communities not just to have a better chance than they have had, but to have the same chance as any other child in Scotland.
In order to remove barriers to access, we first have to understand more fully what they are, which is why we have established the widening access commission under the convenership of Dame Ruth Silver. The commission met for the first time last week to address the question directly. A key part of its work will be to engage more widely with people who can, through their own experiences, relate what needs to change in order for us to meet the ambition that we have set out. I look forward to receiving the commission’s final report in the spring next year.
I also welcome the commission and its membership, which I think is first-class. However, we need to see the full remit for the commission’s work. In the meantime, can the First Minister confirm that the commission will look at the impact on widening participation of Scotland having the lowest student grants in western Europe and of student debt being highest among students from poorer backgrounds, uniquely in the United Kingdom?
I hope that we can reach some consensus across the chamber on the issue because I think that we all agree on its importance. I will just point out to Iain Gray that it was not this Government but NUS Scotland that described the Scottish Government student support package as
“the best support package in the whole of the UK”.
The latest Student Loans Company figures, which were published in June last year, show that average student loan debt in Scotland is the lowest in the UK. It is £7,600 in Scotland compared with more than £20,000 in England, £17,000 in Wales and more than £16,000 in Northern Ireland. Those are the facts, and it would serve us all well to remember them.
I want the commission on widening access to look at any issue that it wants to look at, because I am absolutely serious about my determination and that of the Government to close the inequality gap.
I know—as many members in all parts of the chamber will know from personal experience—the importance of a good education. I cannot speak for anybody else, but I know that I would not be standing here right now without it. I am determined that every young person in Scotland will, regardless of their background, get the same chances in life that I had.
Fracking
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on fracking. (S4F-02771)
We are taking an evidence-based approach to fracking, which is why we have in place a moratorium to ensure that it cannot happen while we are looking further at a variety of issues. We will undertake a full public consultation, listen to the voices of concerned communities and undertake further research.
That cautious and evidence-led approach to unconventional oil and gas is in direct contrast to what I would describe as the gung-ho approach of the United Kingdom Government, and indeed to the Labour Party’s refusal to support a moratorium when one was proposed in the House of Commons.
Since January I have been pursuing a freedom of information request with the Scottish Government to bring into the public domain the Scottish Government’s dealings with INEOS at Grangemouth and the company’s plans for fracking. That request has been refused because of
“The sensitive nature of some of the discussion”.
According to INEOS, the company had
“a very positive relationship with the former First Minister and met with him on numerous occasions”.
Will the First Minister now order the release of that information so that the Scottish people can see exactly what plans the Scottish Government has to facilitate INEOS’s desire to frack across the central belt?
As Neil Findlay knows, there is a statutory process to go through for freedom of information requests, and the Government will comply with that.
In case it has escaped Neil Findlay’s notice, I note that INEOS is a major employer in Scotland. Surely any member in the chamber, and certainly everybody outside the chamber, would want any First Minister and any Government to seek to have a positive relationship with an employer who provides so many jobs in Scotland, and I make no apology for seeking to do just that. The fact that Labour questions that perhaps tells us all that we need to know about Labour’s unfitness to hold office in this Parliament.
That positive relationship will not influence the position that the Scottish Government reaches on fracking. We will go through the evidence carefully, consistent with the precautionary and evidence-based approach that I have described, and take decisions that are in the broader—indeed, the widest possible—interest of the people of Scotland, because that is what people have a right to expect their Government to do.
Communities throughout Scotland that have been threatened by fracking and other forms of unconventional gas are impatient to see a moratorium turned into a full permanent ban. However, they cannot understand—and nor can I—why the Scottish Government has not included underground coal gasification, which is an even riskier form of unconventional gas, in its evidence-based approach or its moratorium. Why has it not done so?
As Patrick Harvie will be well aware, there are different technologies at stake, but we will continue to consider all the issues properly.
I know that some people—those who, for understandable reasons, oppose fracking—are impatient to see a moratorium turned into a ban. However, if we were to do that before doing all the work, we would not be taking an evidence-based approach, just as we would not have been doing that if we had not had a moratorium. We are striking the right balance and we will continue to do so, taking into account all the right issues before coming to our final views.
As Patrick Harvie is well aware, part of the work that we are doing involves a public consultation exercise. That will give every member in the Parliament, and all their constituents in the areas that would be affected if fracking was ever to go ahead, the opportunity to take part. I hope that members on all sides of the chamber would welcome that.
On Monday the leading Scottish engineering company Weir Group announced a new joint venture with Rolls-Royce to produce an integrated power system to make fracking more efficient. Can the First Minister explain to us how the Scottish National Party Government’s indefinite moratorium on fracking will help a successful Scottish company such as Weir Group that wants to expand, create jobs and grow the economy?
We want to support—and as a Government we have a very good record on supporting—companies to locate, expand, succeed and prosper in Scotland. The economy and the jobs of thousands, and tens and hundreds of thousands, of people depend on that approach, so we will continue to do that.
I know that Murdo Fraser takes a particular view on unconventional gas, but I think that it is right for the Scottish Government to take a precautionary approach. A number of concerns have been raised about health and environmental impacts and about the rights of communities who would be affected by fracking to be properly and meaningfully consulted. I will leave it to Murdo Fraser and the Conservatives to argue with those communities as to why they should not have a voice in taking those decisions, but the Scottish Government will continue to take a precautionary, evidence-based approach because, fundamentally, that is the right thing to do.
I welcome the First Minister’s comments on the need for public consultation and, indeed, for the moratorium. Can she provide an update on the devolution to the Scottish Parliament of licensing of onshore oil and gas extraction, as recommended by the Smith commission?
The devolution of powers over onshore oil and gas licensing represents a significant increase in the ability of the Scottish Government to determine our own path for onshore oil and gas. Following the Smith commission heads of agreement and the subsequent United Kingdom publication of the draft clauses and command paper, the Scottish Government is awaiting further discussions with the incoming UK Government to determine the full extent of the devolution of those powers prior, I hope, to the introduction of a Scotland bill later this year. Parliament will be kept fully informed of progress and will have the opportunity to contribute as appropriate.
Population Increase
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the increase in Scotland's population. (S4F-02777)
I am delighted that Scotland’s population has risen again and is now at its highest ever level—more than 5,300,000. In the past year, we have seen a significant increase in the number of people coming to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom and indeed from further afield, highlighting just how attractive Scotland is as a place to live, work, study and invest. Not only that, but more than two thirds of those coming to Scotland from overseas are aged between 16 and 34, showing the value of migration in helping to grow our working-age population.
The First Minister will be aware that 48 per cent of migrants from the rest of the UK are aged 16 to 34. Despite lots of stories during the referendum that people would be put off coming to Scotland, it is clearly the case that young people in particular continue to seek to study, live and work in Scotland. Regardless of the result tomorrow, will the First Minister agree to continue to extend the hand of friendship to people elsewhere in the UK?
I do agree to do that, and I always will. Scotland welcomes the contribution that new Scots make to our economy and to our society, whether they come from overseas or from just over the border.
The latest population figures show that Scotland’s net migration gain from the rest of the UK was approximately 9,600. That is a significant contribution to the overall population increase. I believe—and I hope that my view is shared across the chamber—that Scotland should always welcome people who want to come and live here, whether they come from other parts of the UK or from further afield.
We are a nation of emigrants as well as immigrants. People who come here make a significant contribution to our economy and to our society, and we should welcome them.
Given that the population increases closely follow existing projections, does not that strengthen the validity of forecasts on Scotland’s ageing population—in particular, the Scottish Government’s report, “Demographic Change in Scotland”—and make the well-documented failure of the Scottish Government’s change fund to reshape care for older people even more stark?
I am not sure that I entirely follow Annabel Goldie’s train of thought or logic there, but if that is my fault and I have perhaps missed the premise of her question, she should feel free to write to me and I will be happy to address it fully.
As I said in my original answer, more than two thirds of people coming to Scotland from overseas are between 16 and 34. In other words, they boost our working-age population. One of the ways in which Scotland, in common with many other countries across the world, has to deal with its ageing population—and let us never forget that our ageing population is a good thing to be celebrated, because it means that people are living longer—is by growing our working-age population. The figures are therefore good news in many different ways, but not least because the increase enables us to ensure that we can cater for a population that, thankfully, is living longer into old age.
That ends First Minister’s questions. I shall give members a few moments to settle down before portfolio questions. Those who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.
Previous
General Question Time