First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00183)
Later today, I will publicly congratulate Universities Scotland on the achievement of recording five Scottish universities in the world’s top 200. That is an extraordinary achievement, and means that Scotland has more world-class universities than any other nation on earth. It is something that everyone in the chamber should celebrate.
Indeed, we should be proud of the performance of our universities, but I want to ask the First Minister about something of which I know that he and this country are not proud.
When the First Minister said that he would legislate against sectarianism, we supported that intention. In June, when he extended the timetable for his bill so that it could be improved, I welcomed that decision. On that basis, we supported his bill at stage 1 but, in all sincerity, I ask him now: in the intervening three months, what has changed in the proposed legislation to make it work?
The bill has been going through the committee process and, as I understand it, the Justice Committee will publish its report this afternoon. In that report, which will take account of all the evidence that has been considered, the committee will no doubt put forward recommendations, to which the Government will respond.
Iain Gray seems to misunderstand the parliamentary process. The complaint that we took on board was that there was insufficient time for people to put forward opinions, for the committee to respond to them and make recommendations, and for the Government to respond to the committee. That is the legislative process. The difference is that with emergency legislation, time is restricted, whereas on the current timetable, time has been allowed.
I am sure that Iain Gray can think of up 100 different reasons for opposing the bill, but there is only one reason for supporting it, which is that it is the right thing to do.
It is absolutely true that to act against sectarianism is the right thing to do, but the question is whether the bill is the right legislation. The extra time for scrutiny that the First Minister rightly provided has not convinced the bill’s critics. Yesterday, we saw the views of Bishop Tartaglia; today, we see the concerns of Nil by Mouth. The First Minister cannot accuse them of not taking sectarianism seriously, but they are unable to support the proposed legislation. Does the First Minister not think that we are obliged to listen to them?
I had the advantage of speaking to Bishop Tartaglia the other evening, so I know exactly what his concerns are, and I am certain that those concerns can be allayed in the discussions that I will have with him tomorrow.
As far as Nil by Mouth is concerned, I was delighted to see in the press today that Dave Scott, Bill Butler’s former research assistant, has found gainful employment—[Interruption.] I would be very disappointed if he had not found gainful employment in Scotland.
That is beneath you.
Mr Henry, please do not shout in the chamber.
I say seriously to Iain Gray that we should remember that Nil by Mouth was established because, in 1995, Mark Scott was murdered. Over the past 15 years, Mark Scott’s father, Niall Scott, has campaigned quietly through his own trust, which he set up to address problems in Scottish society. He very seldom gives interviews. However, he gave an interview to BBC Scotland on 12 September. Let me read the exact BBC Scotland report, which says:
“Lawyer Niall Scott, whose son Mark ... was killed ... because he was wearing a Celtic shirt, said yesterday that he is pleased about the new Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill, despite a backlash against the planned legislation.
Mr Scott told BBC Radio Scotland: ‘We still do have a significant problem in Scotland in connection with sectarianism, and racism and territorialism as well. The old remedies don’t appear to me to have properly addressed the problems that we’ve got, and I welcome a fresh initiative being taken.’”
I suppose that in these things we all have to make a choice: we are either part of the backlash or part of the solution. I truly hope that most people in this Parliament decide to be part of the solution.
This is the second week in a row that the First Minister has cast aspersions on people who have commented on his political initiatives. He should be ashamed of himself.
Since June what we have seen is existing law being used successfully to fine and jail those who peddle bigotry on the internet and in sectarian songs. We have seen the arrest of a number of Hibernian supporters in a case that has still to come to trial. However, we have seen no clarity on how the proposed new law will actually work, what the definitions of crime are and how it will be enforceable. The fact is that the minister, Roseanna Cunningham, returned to committee and again failed to answer those concerns. Of course we need and want fresh initiatives—legislation, even—on sectarianism. We argued for that for four years while the First Minister did not wish to act. However, does he not realise that passing bad law that does not work could do more harm than good?
As has been explained by a range of legal experts, the police and the prosecution authorities, the legislation fills obvious gaps in the law pertaining to breach of the peace. Iain Gray referred to the second part of the bill. Looking at the Justice Committee’s proceedings, I understand that that part of the legislation seemed to carry general support, and I am really surprised to hear him now question the internet and threatening communications aspect of the bill.
The bill is designed to criminalise behaviour likely to lead to public disorder that expresses or incites hatred and which is threatening or otherwise offensive to a reasonable person. All the evidence that we have suggests that such behaviour connected to football has wider implications for public order. The nature of such legislation is not uncommon; it depends on fact and circumstance. Indeed, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 contained the same criteria in establishing offences aggravated by religious prejudice and the United Kingdom Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 carries the same definitional aspects of fact and circumstance. It is not new.
With regard to such decisions, I say again to Iain Gray that, if this legislation had been easy to pass, people would no doubt have passed it many years ago. As we know, the problems that have manifested and attached themselves to our great game of football are not just a matter of the astonishing scenes that we saw last season but have been with us for a generation or more.
In that light, I was struck by comments made by my predecessor in 2009. Looking back over his time as First Minister, he said that his greatest regret was that he had not brought forward legislation on sectarianism. As Iain Gray has noted, he is not going to get the opportunity to be First Minister but I hope that when he looks back on his period as Opposition leader his greatest regret is not that when it came to the crunch and legislation was put forward in good faith to tackle an obvious perceived problem in Scottish society—legislation that was supported by the police and the prosecution authorities, which asked for the tools to do the job that we wished them to do—he was found wanting.
I understand that it is not easy to “face down sectarianism”, which the First Minister said last week we must do. However, he will not do that by facing down the critics of his specific legislation; he will do it by doing the work to build consensus and agreement.
When the First Minister has the support of the country, he will deserve the support of the whole Parliament and he will have the support of this party. I have made it clear that my party accepts the need to legislate on sectarianism. That does not mean that any legislation has to be supported. Legislation must garner the support of the country, and this legislation has not done that so far. Does the First Minister not recognise that, as it stands, the legislation cannot be supported?
In which case, we will all look forward to the amendments that, as the bill goes through the process, the Labour Party puts forward to make the legislation compatible with its support. What we have at present is evidence upon evidence from those whom we charge with responsibility—from the police and the prosecution authorities—pointing out the gaps in breach of the peace legislation and pointing the way forward.
In a statement today, Assistant Chief Constable Campbell Corrigan, makes the point that just saying that sectarianism exists elsewhere in society is no argument for not dealing with the clear, perceived problem that attaches itself to our game of football.
When that evidence is presented by the police and the prosecution authorities, when they ask for the tools to do an extraordinarily difficult job that we as a society want them to do, and when we are required as a Parliament to face down what has been accepted in this country for far, far too long, is it too much to expect everyone in Parliament to rise above the smoke of political battle and do what is right for this country’s future?
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00174)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
When will the level 4 figures—the really detailed figures for the Scottish budget—be published?
Some were published yesterday; more will be published shortly.
That is a rather economic response. I think what the First Minister meant was that one out of seven departmental heads was published yesterday. At that rate, we might get the rest of the information by the middle of December.
Everyone is asking, “Why the delay? Why the secrecy?” The reality is that the budget is unravelling. Mr Swinney can whisper all the sweet nothings he likes into the First Minister’s ear but he cannot deny the inescapable. The much-vaunted £750 million for capital remains shrouded in mystery. We do not know where it is coming from; we do not know what it is being applied to; and we do not know what is being cut to provide it. Is this not another example of the arrogance of this Government sitting back and saying, “We’ve got the majority. You can’t touch us”?
Parliament and its committees are being denied proper and essential scrutiny of the budget. Surely even the First Minister can accept that that is totally unacceptable.
It is pretty clear from that long question that Ramsay Jones has been suspended. [Laughter.] After week upon week of Annabel Goldie asking me to make my answers brief, when I provide an answer that is succinct and to the point, she chooses to ignore it.
The detailed figures on agriculture and rural affairs were published before the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee met yesterday. All other detailed figures will be published before the relevant committees meet. That is the right way to respect the committees of the Parliament and to draw attention to what has been an excellent budget for Scotland, under the most difficult circumstances imposed from Westminster.
Whatever else we say about Mr Swinney’s fantastic budget, he did not have to rewrite his budget speech before it was delivered.
I have a constituency question to ask the First Minister. Are the Commonwealth games facilities that are being built in the east end of Glasgow on time and on budget?
On time and on budget.
Is the First Minister aware of the report in yesterday’s Evening Times highlighting the circumstances around a recent rape trial in which a woman who had reported that she had been raped expressed her distress at the way in which she was treated during the trial? That included—astonishingly—the woman being asked to hold up her underwear in court, which she described as humiliating and degrading treatment? Does the First Minister think that such cross-examination is acceptable? Will he as a matter of urgency instruct his Cabinet Secretary for Justice to review the sexual offences legislation that was meant to protect victims from inappropriate and aggressive interrogation in court in order to ensure that fear of the court process does not prevent victims from making a complaint in the first place? Will he tackle the reason why rape convictions remain so scandalously low?
The issue of rape convictions is a preoccupation of this Government. I am sure that the member will acknowledge the work that has been done by the former Lord Advocate on the matter. I will examine the report in the newspaper and, of course, the report of the court proceedings, and I will ask the law officers and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to comment to see whether we can improve things.
I was recently contacted by a constituent who has stage 4 melanoma that is unresponsive to traditional cancer therapies. There is, however a new immunotherapy drug called Yervoy, which could radically transform my constituent’s prospects. Yervoy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, and was licensed for use in the United Kingdom this August. Is the First Minister aware that the manufacturer has not yet submitted an application to the Scottish Medicines Consortium for use of the drug in the national health service in Scotland, despite having applied to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for its use in England and Wales? What steps can the Scottish Government take to encourage pharmaceutical companies to submit applications to the SMC and NICE simultaneously?
I am pleased to say that one of the advantages of the SMC process is that the SMC can proactively take the initiative and approach pharmaceutical companies near the time of the licensing of their medicines to confirm the submission date. I can tell the member that the SMC is in touch with Bristol-Myers Squibb regarding a submission to the SMC for that particular pharmaceutical innovation.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00182)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The First Minister’s treatment of Iain Gray today was, I thought, appalling. He raised genuine concerns and it demeans the First Minister constantly to impugn his motives. [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister is planning £40 million of cuts to Scotland’s colleges next year, but this week he has been given £67 million of extra money by the Treasury. Surely what to do with that money is a no-brainer?
I do not know what question time the member was listening to, incidentally, but we will leave that to one side. Maybe we should just concentrate when occasionally the member raises a serious issue.
I would have thought that, rather than looking at the millions of pounds of consequentials that come from a council tax freeze that we have already implemented in Scotland, the member might wish to reflect on the billions—billions—of pounds of public spending that has been withdrawn from Scotland.
On what we are doing in the capital budgets to try to counteract the policies of the Government that the member supports, perhaps the member will acknowledge the £200 million of non-profit-distributing capital for building the new City of Glasgow College and the £100 million of NPD capital that will be devoted to colleges in Inverness and Kilmarnock. If he would prevail on his United Kingdom colleagues not to follow slavishly the Tory policy of dramatic early cuts in capital spending but to come to a new settlement, that would be to the benefit of us all.
So, no answer again—no answer.
Before the election, the First Minister worked with us and the other parties to increase support for colleges, providing extra places and more bursaries. It is a shame that when he gets a majority he changes his mind. Hundreds of thousands of people rely on colleges. The Government’s promises on apprenticeships need colleges. His own guarantee to young people depends on them. There is a simple, sensible choice for the First Minister: will he or will he not use the extra money from the Treasury to train more young people ?
The Scottish National Party’s commitment on numbers in further and higher education will be maintained, as will its commitment on 25,000 apprenticeship places. I am not certain whether Willie Rennie is aware that a fifth of those places are delivered through the college structure. I have been concerned that people are not fully aware of the vital work that colleges and others do on delivering apprenticeships.
The outcomes are 25,000 apprenticeships and a guarantee that every 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland will have a training or educational opportunity if they are not in an apprenticeship, full-time education or a job. That will happen. That guarantee has been repeated by no one else in these islands. I would have thought that Willie Rennie would be able to welcome that.
I will make two final points. First, if Willie Rennie is going to argue that he knows exactly where the consequentials should be spent, perhaps he should have a wee discussion with his colleagues—after all, it would not take too long—because, this morning, Jim Hume argued for them to be spent on the housing budget. I am sure that, once Mr Rennie and Mr Hume get together, they will decide the Liberal or Democratic policy on housing and colleges and relay a consistent position to Mr Swinney.
Secondly, if Willie Rennie is so concerned about colleges, why does he not have a word with his colleagues at Westminster? The cut in college funding south of the border will be 25 per cent. Is it a case of one thing from Mr Hume, one thing from Mr Rennie, one thing in this Parliament and something else at Westminster?
Budget Settlement (Local Authorities)
4. To ask the First Minister what progress has been made on reaching a budget settlement with local authorities. (S4F-00175)
Despite unprecedented Westminster cuts, local government has been offered a tough but fair settlement that maintains its share of the budget, which is above the share that the Government inherited when it came to office in 2007. It represents the best possible deal against the background of the tightest financial constraints for a generation. I am delighted to confirm to the Parliament that local authority leaders have agreed by a substantial majority to support in principle the Government’s proposals for the local government settlement.
I am sure that Aberdeen City Council will be one of the most enthusiastic backers of the local government finance settlement because of the Scottish Government’s pledge to introduce an 85 per cent funding floor. Will the settlement address the historical underfunding of Aberdeen and give the granite city a fairer deal?
In a statement earlier this week, the leader of Aberdeen City Council said that, in discussions with trade union colleagues, he had reaffirmed his position on compulsory redundancies, and that they will not happen at the council while he is the leader. He continued:
“Aberdeen City Council is set to benefit from the new 85% funding floor that is being introduced by the SNP.”
That is an indication of how the funding floor will enable Aberdeen to cope with its substantial financial issues without resorting to compulsory redundancies.
It is interesting that that funding floor, which was proposed in our manifesto and which was backed by the people of Scotland, was not supported by the Labour Party anywhere—except, of course, in Aberdeen.
I ask the First Minister to note that, although he is pleased that the Scottish National Party-dominated Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has decided to back—[Laughter.]
Order, order.
I repeat: will the First Minister note that, although the SNP-dominated COSLA has decided to back the SNP Government’s local government cuts, Labour MSPs are proud that their Labour council colleagues rejected John Swinney’s threats of financial sanctions and will not do his bidding? Will he acknowledge that only Labour councillors recognised the real-terms cuts in spending that will force councils, including Aberdeen City Council, to make unnecessary cuts in employment levels? Will he acknowledge that further service cuts will follow? Will he acknowledge that only Labour rejected his Government’s capital spending plan, in which John Swinney had the nerve to ask local authorities to do his borrowing without committing to reimburse them for doing his dirty work—[Interruption.] Does he not recognise that—
Members: It is a speech!
Order. There is too much noise.
Does the First Minister not recognise that this is a fraud conducted to blame councils for his failures?
It’s the way he tells them.
Let us deal with the facts of the case. Let us first take out the health service budget, which this Government certainly believes should be ring fenced—I know that there was some doubt in the Labour Party’s mind but, according to Labour members last week, the party wants to ring fence that budget, too. If we take out the health service budget from Scottish Government spending, the share that goes to local government spending from the rest of the Scottish Government’s budget—the one handed down by Westminster; the one that the Labour Party was to cut with cuts that were to be deeper and tougher than those of Margaret Thatcher—will have increased from 64.3 per cent when we took office to 69.6 per cent at the end of this financial settlement. Given the pain that Michael McMahon may want to forget was first inflicted by the Labour Government at Westminster—by the chancellor Alistair Darling who now tells us that he wanted to go further and faster and that he felt that his budget lacked credibility—that is a fair settlement in anyone’s terms.
SNP-dominated COSLA has a Labour president. Mr Swinney’s measures were supported by every other political group and carried a substantial majority in COSLA. Given that a few weeks ago we were talking about fortune tellers, perhaps when Michael McMahon is thinking about an SNP-dominated COSLA he is thinking not about now but about next year.
Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill
5. To ask the First Minister what changes the Scottish Government plans to make to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill. (S4F-00187)
As I said earlier, we will look carefully at the Justice Committee’s report when it is published this afternoon. I have no doubt that the committee, which James Kelly serves on, will bring to our attention key points from the evidence that was presented to it. The Government will respond to the committee’s report, and we will start the legislative process in which all members have the opportunity—should they choose to take it—to bring forward the legislation that they would like to see and the key arguments that they would like to put. Then we as a Parliament can come to a conclusion in the normal fashion on legislation that I believe is long overdue.
The First Minister and the Lord Advocate have said that the new laws are required to address gaps in the existing legislation, but there have been numerous prosecutions and convictions under the present law, including an internet user facing a jail term for posting sectarian comments on Facebook and a fan fined £1,000 on Monday of this week for sectarian singing. Does the First Minister not agree that those convictions undermine the Government’s case that there are gaps in the existing legislation?
First, James Kelly is on the Justice Committee, so I do not know where he was when Superintendent David Marshall of British Transport Police gave evidence and said:
“We welcome the bill. Breach of the peace, for example, is and has been repeatedly open to challenge. The bill ... puts into law offences that relate specifically to religious, racial and other forms of hate crime that are associated with football”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 13 September 2011; c 230.]
A superintendent from British Transport Police has brought forward that evidence to the committee and pointed to the gaps in breach of the peace as an offence. Therefore, I am not certain why James Kelly believes that he has some insight that is greater than that of those who have to practise the law as it stands and who are aware of prosecutions that were not successful because of the gaps in the legislation.
It is the easiest thing in the world for politicians to moan about the courts and about decisions that seem incredible to the ordinary person, but if a gap in the law has been identified the challenge for politicians is to do something about it. The bill is designed to do something about it.
Secondly, the proceedings of the Justice Committee indicate that the second part of the bill has received general support, so I am astonished that the thrust of James Kelly’s question suggests that he is withdrawing Labour Party support from that part as well as questioning the first part of the bill. Is that where we have got to with the Labour Party’s attitude to the bill? The legislation has been requested and supported by the police, the law officers and the Crown Office—those whom we charge with the responsibility of making our society better. For goodness’ sake, let us give them the tools to do the job that we ask them to do.
Private Finance Initiative Projects (Cost)
6. To ask the First Minister what the impact will be on the Scottish Government’s budget of the reported £1 billion per annum to be paid to private firms for PFI projects. (S4F-00178)
Total public sector payments in respect of PFI contracts agreed by previous Administrations in Scotland will rise to more than £1 billion a year once all the projects inherited by us reach completion. Those payments must be made from public sector resource budgets, which we know are under pressure and are being slashed as a result of choices by the Tories and, previously, Labour at Westminster.
The lesson for the Scottish Parliament is that we must have access to full borrowing powers. That is why it is so important that the Scotland Bill is improved. Instead of the credit card level of repayments under PFI, we will be able to access the most cost-effective capital, meaning that we will be able to do more to boost Scotland’s economy, create jobs and pay less over the term of the projects.
You may ask a brief supplementary question, Mr Keir.
PFI projects in Edinburgh will incur more than £3.5 billion in payments over time—five times the total value. Does the First Minister agree that PFI is a shameful drain on our public finances, taking away money from local services? Does he agree—
First Minister.
Yes, and I will give the chamber an example. Hairmyres hospital has generated a profit of £145 million from an initial investment of just £8.4 million. We should compare that PFI legacy with the Scottish Futures Trust, which has generated savings of more than £200 million in the past two years alone.
That ends First Minister’s question time.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In the First Minister’s non-reply to one of Willie Rennie’s questions, he stated that I asked for more money for the housing budget. That is completely incorrect. I requested information to see whether the SNP would stand by the commitment in its manifesto to build 6,000 social rented houses per year in this session of Parliament.
That is not a point of order, Mr Hume, but you have made your point.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Under the standing orders, MSPs are expected to show courtesy to one another. Although I fully accept that I am big and ugly enough to take the First Minister’s swipes, in an earlier answer the First Minister impugned the integrity of a member of the public serving an organisation. Is it appropriate for the First Minister to be continually allowed to slander the integrity and character of individuals outside the Parliament?
The First Minister is responsible for his own remarks.
12:33
Meeting suspended.
14:15
On resuming—