Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1668)
I have engagements to take forward the Governments programme for Scotland. However, in this week in which we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the first elections to the Parliament, all members, regardless of their political perspective, should spend at least some time considering and taking satisfaction from the advent of an institution that has changed life in our country fundamentally and for the better.
We in the Labour Party echo those words of celebration of the 10-year anniversary of the institution. However, the First Minister and his Cabinet also found time this week to slap themselves on the back for their mid-term report. They said that it was
That is the sort of question that probably sounded all right when Iain Gray was rehearsing it with Andy Kerr earlier on. In Iain Grays accolades of individual ministers in the Government, which are much appreciated, he forgot the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, whose work, not least on the current flu outbreak, has been exceptional. I thank Iain Gray for his commendations of the Governments work, but he will excuse me if I am even more satisfied with the overwhelming evidence from the opinion polls that the people of Scotland back the Scottish National Party Government.
Was that the answer? I have the First Ministers list of so-called achievements. It probably looked good when he was writing it down, but it does not bear much examination. Number 30 states that the Government has "Reviewed modern apprenticeship" programmes—he means that he cut them. I like number 41, which states, "Developed North Sea super-grid". How did I miss that? Where is he hiding it—in the basement of Bute house? Not so much wired to Norway—more like wired to the moon. Number 28 states that the Scottish Futures Trust has been "achieved". Now he really is having a laugh at our expense. In two years, the SFT has delivered two meetings, one e-mail and not a single school or hospital. Does the First Minister really consider the Scottish Futures Trust to be an achievement?
The North Sea grid and the achievements of the SNP Government are hugely important for Scotland. I have the list of 50 commitments that the Government has already met or exceeded in our first two years in office. I do not have time to address all 50, but let us try the first five: the council tax freeze in Scotland for two years in a row; the small business bonus, which is vital for employment in our communities; the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges; the reversal of the decision to close the accident and emergency departments at Monklands and Ayr hospitals—it is a good job that we did not downgrade Monklands in light of recent events; and the delivery of funding for 1,000 more police officers on the streets of Scotland. I would like to go on to list the other 45 commitments, but we will make them available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. Perhaps the Labour Party should wonder why, in eight long, miserable years in government, it did not manage to achieve any one of those 50 commitments made by the Scottish National Party.
The First Minister missed out the first-time buyers without their £2,000; the students with the debt that the SNP promised to ditch; the carers who are still waiting for their funding; and the children in classes whose size the SNP promised to reduce. He did not mention the teachers on the dole or the pensioners means tested out of the central heating programme. He did not mention his local income tax that has just been ditched. So many promises broken in so little time; I do not have time to go through them all. Is that not why one of our papers today asks of the First Ministers record whether it has been
I must say that I am delighted with the description of my size—it is very comforting indeed. On the local income tax, how can Iain Gray complain about the non-implementation of local income tax when he kept voting against it? I have to confess to one other aspect of our manifesto that we have not been able to achieve, unlike the 50 commitments that have been achieved in two years. It was the Governments ambition to cancel the Edinburgh trams project and invest that money in capital infrastructure in the capital city and throughout Scotland. I wonder whether anybody in the Parliament or on the Labour benches—even Iain Gray—thinks that they were wise to combine with the Tories and Liberal party to foist that project on the people of Scotland. Is there a single person who believes that?
There are two signs of desperation in politics. [Interruption.]
Order.
One sign of desperation is to tell the electorate lies in order to get their votes; that is what local income tax is about. The second is when the First Minister is reduced to reading out poll results, especially when he bought and paid for the polls.
Employment is a serious issue. Ten years ago, unemployment in Scotland was 25 per cent higher than the United Kingdom average, as indeed it was for most of the post-war period. One of the things that we should be satisfied about is that, although we are in a recession and in difficult times at present, unemployment in Scotland is now 25 per cent below the UK average. Iain Gray complains about our firm action to accelerate the economy in Scotland and to create jobs through our plans. He should look south of the border and wonder why the plans there are not being quite as successful.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1669)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future, but a meeting is being arranged in a few weeks time.
There are few certainties in life, but we have just been reminded forcibly of one this morning: a First Minister who is desperate to be liked. It is also becoming very clear that he does not have the guts to take tough decisions. The Parliaments Finance Committee took evidence last week that showed that Labours mishandling of the economy could mean massive long-term cuts to the Scottish budget. The First Minister says—he repeated it this morning—that Labours squeeze on the Scottish budget will be £500 million from next April. If that is the case, how is he going to tighten his belt—small or otherwise? What is he going to cut, or does he not have the courage to tell us?
As Annabel Goldie well knows because she supported the proposal, we set up a process in the budget debate to examine public spending in Scotland and invited contributions from the other parties to face that reality. She can be absolutely certain that that will be done in an orderly manner.
Let us be clear that the Labour Party has created this horrific mess. The Conservatives, when elected to government, will have to deal with the consequences of that horrific mess, and will have the courage to do that. The First Minister does not have the bottle to deal with the horrific mess.
The Governments efficiency targets of 2 per cent across departments are being met; they have been met over the past two years; and they will continue to be met. There is a major difference between the Governments efficiency savings and cuts by the Labour Party and the Conservative party: the Governments efficiency savings are reinvested in public services and local councils across Scotland.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1670)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
This week, the First Minister received a prisoner transfer request from the Libyan Government. I ask him where he stands on the statement that he made in June 2007, in which he said:
Tavish Scott will understand that nothing that I say should be taken to prejudice decisions that the Scottish Government will have to take on the prisoner transfer agreement or anything else. I point out to him, since we are looking into history, that he is absolutely right: in June 2007, I came to the Parliament with an emergency statement to warn of the implications of the memorandum of understanding that was agreed between the then Prime Minister and Colonel Gaddafi.
That is as it should be, but I agree with the secretary-general of the United Nations and the Scottish law officers: Al Megrahi should serve his sentence in Scotland. The First Minister has announced today that he will reopen and revisit the assurance that was given by the secretary-general of the UN, yet elsewhere SNP members are saying that the transfer request is simply a conspiracy to prevent the criminal appeal from being heard in full.
Is Tavish Scott seriously suggesting that if a prisoner transfer request is made, it should not receive proper consideration in terms of due process? That is an absolutely extraordinary thing to say.
I will take a constituency question from Elaine Smith.
What support can the First Ministers Government offer the total workforce of 57 people at Glen Shaw Knitwear—formerly Mackinnons—in Coatbridge, who were dismissed in an appalling way last week, with no prior notice or consultation?
As in all situations of redundancy, this Government will give whatever support we can to the employees involved. If the constituency member wishes to pursue the matter with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, we can arrange for that to be done.
Economic Support
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to support jobs and economic recovery. (S3F-1672)
The economic recovery plan is focused on jobs, skills and investment in the industries of the future, and we are working hard to ensure that Scotland weathers the current economic storm and recovers strongly.
I welcome the action that is being taken by the Scottish Government, but does the First Minister agree that, although such local stimulus is welcome, it will be badly affected by the decision of the United Kingdom Government to remove resources from investment in jobs by cutting £500 million from Scotlands budget? That is in stark contrast to the action of the Australian state of Victoria, which is supporting its population of 5 million with an £8 billion fiscal stimulus, including resources that are being raised through borrowing powers. What impact will the UK cuts have on jobs in Aberdeen and the north-east?
I welcome the question, because it gives us an opportunity to put these matters into stark contrast. As I said, the European funding, which I know is welcomed throughout the chamber, will help the creation of 8,000 jobs throughout the country. Six thousand jobs are supported by the acceleration of capital investment. The new-build plan for local authority housing—this Administration is actually building council houses in Scotland—will create 3,000 jobs. All those jobs are valuable and add to a considerable total of tens of thousands of jobs that will be supported by this Administrations recovery plan.
What a contrast indeed, between truth and fiction around the Scottish budget. Would the First Minister care to agree with his own director general of finance that the Scottish budget will grow by 1.3 per cent next year, in the teeth of this recession? Does he agree with the fiscal stimulus measure of £2 billion for the Scottish economy, which has already been put in by the UK Government, and, of course, the £50 billion that has been put in place to save Scottish workers in our banks and leave Scottish mortgage payers in homes throughout Scotland?
Both the red book and the Scottish Governments director general of finance indicated that, because of Labours cuts, there will be less spending in the Scottish economy next year in comparison with this year, in the teeth of a recession. That is in contrast not just with what is happening in Australia but with what is happening in President Obamas America, where, next year, there will be counter-recessionary fiscal stimulus in the economy. Will Labour finally get its head around the reality that, in addition to the £500 million of cuts, which Andy Kerr said that he could not calculate even up to the last moment, there is the threat of a real-terms reduction in public spending year on year in the red book, which was also confirmed at the start of this session of Parliament by Labours own former economist, Mr John McLaren? Labour Party front benchers that are reduced to attacking their own economist are no semblance of authority for Scotlands future. We have investment and jobs from the SNP, but cuts in public services from the Labour Party.
Before we come to question 5, I point out that Mr Al Megrahi has an active appeal against his conviction. Where he serves his sentence is not under appeal, but whether he is guilty of the crime is sub judice and, therefore, supplementary questions should not stray on to the subject of the appeal itself—whether the evidence or the accuseds guilt or innocence—as that would be in breach of rule 7.5.1 of standing orders.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi
To ask the First Minister what consideration the Scottish Government has given to the possible transfer of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to a prison in Libya. (S3F-1678)
The United Kingdom and Libyan Governments ratified a prisoner transfer agreement on Wednesday 29 April 2009. An application for prisoner transfer has now been received from the Libyan authorities on behalf of Mr Al Megrahi. The application will be considered according to the agreement, relevant legislation and the merits of the individual case.
On 2 February 2008, the First Minister told the BBC news:
For obvious reasons, it is not possible to predetermine a response before a prisoner transfer agreement is in place. The warnings that we gave in the statements that I made in June 2007 in the Parliament, and in the attempt—which, initially, seemed successful—to persuade the United Kingdom Government to exclude from the face of the prisoner transfer agreement people connected with the Lockerbie bombing, have been amply demonstrated in what has come to pass.
Will the First Minister clarify the process? He has said several times this morning—most recently in response to Elaine Murrays question—that, in practice, the decision on the request will be taken by Mr MacAskill as Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Members will be aware that The Scotsman newspaper suggested this morning that the decision would be taken by the First Minister and would be the subject of a discussion in the Cabinet. Will he confirm whether that is correct?
The decision will be made by Mr MacAskill as Cabinet Secretary for Justice. That is the right thing to do, because it emphasises that we are making a decision on judicial grounds and no other. Given Mr McLetchies history and mine, it would be unwise to believe everything that is reported, even in The Scotsman.
Does the First Minister agree, further to all his answers, that the prisoner transfer agreement that Tony Blair conjured up in the desert has simply muddied the waters? Does he also agree that, in the interest of the victims relatives—those who believe that Mr Al Megrahi is guilty and those who believe that he is innocent—due process through the Scottish courts is preferable, delivering justice that we all wish to see after 20 long years?
Yes, I agree with that. I think that due process—I have made the point a number of times—is to be preferred to any other process, and Christine Grahame is perfectly right to point to that.
Departmental Expenditure Limit
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to research by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, which predicts that in real terms the Scottish Governments departmental expenditure limit will be between £2.1 billion and £3.8 billion lower in 2013-14 than in 2009-10. (S3F-1685)
The member is right: this is a serious issue for all of us, with cuts next year of £500 million threatening our actions to support economic recovery and putting at risk 9,000 jobs in Scotland.
I am sure that the First Minister agrees that the blame for this sorry state of affairs rests firmly and solely at the door of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling for their mismanagement of the British finances. However, given that we know that the cuts are coming, can the First Minister commit to trying his hardest to preserve front-line services and cut out extraneous expenditure in the Scottish Governments budget? Will he commit to scrapping free prescription charges for people who, like him, can well afford to pay for them? Will he agree to mutualise Scottish Water and free up millions of pounds that could be spent elsewhere? Will he cut back on the army of Government spin doctors and special advisers, who are unnecessary? Will he commit to scrapping the Scottish National Partys futile and unwanted referendum?
As I remember, the last time that Murdo Fraser asked me about Scottish Water—it was one of the Conservatives, anyway—I had to point out that, under any criteria, it is one of the best-performing organisations in Scotland, with lower charges than those that prevail south of the border. If Murdo Fraser is saying that we should have lower investment in and higher charges from Scottish Water, I do not think that he will find much support for his proposition.
We will have a very brief final question from Mike Rumbles.
Is not the First Minister duty bound, in this tight monetary situation, to cut out the waste, as has already been suggested to him? There is huge waste in the Scottish Executives budget. Free school meals for rich kids and the introduction of the beaver in Argyll all cost money.
The beaver?
Yes. It is a joke, is it not?
Very briefly, please.
Most wasteful of all is the money that is being spent on the so-called national conversation and the independence referendum, which the First Minister knows will not survive a vote in this Parliament—it is a complete waste of money.
As I recall, in his leadership campaign, Mike Rumbles was in favour of a referendum—or at least he did not want to oppose it. [Interruption.] I have been assaulted with a paper clip! Now we know the Liberal Democrat recipe for Scotlands recovery from recession: we have to sacrifice the beaver! [Laughter.] If that is not bad enough, the plan to save the beaver actually started in the term of office of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats.
What a joke.
Mike Rumbles says "What a joke." There is nothing like self-analysis in this Parliament. [Laughter.]
That concludes First Ministers question time—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I realise that it was hard to hear over the noise, but those of us who listened carefully to the exchange on question 5 distinctly heard Christine Grahame ask the First Minister whether he felt that due process through the courts should be followed in the case of the convicted Lockerbie bomber. The First Minister might not have heard the question entirely clearly—I understand that sometimes, when sitting in the First Ministers chair, it is possible to misunderstand part of the question—because, in his answer, he agreed with that part of the question. That would imply that due process through the courts for the appeal should follow, rather than prisoner transfer. That could be seen to prejudge the decision that must be made by Mr MacAskill. I raise this point of order simply to highlight that possible discrepancy so that the First Minister might be given an opportunity later this afternoon to make it clear that he did not mean to give out that intention, which is clearly what we understood listening up here in the back row.
One thing on which I would agree with Mr McConnell at this stage is that there was quite a lot of noise in the chamber. I, too, did not entirely pick up the question. If I may, I will look at the matter and come back to the chamber later after considering it.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not wish to detract from the point of order that Jack McConnell has outlined, but can you rule whether a First Minister, or any other member of the Parliament, can lie? The First Minister was accused of lying today.
There is no such concept in this Parliament. The word "lie" does not come into it. As members know, they may not accuse other members of lying.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time