Plenary, 08 Jan 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, January 8, 2009

Official Report 748KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1322)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

I take this opportunity to wish all our viewers a happy new year.

Concern has been growing—quite rightly—about how the First Minister will pay for the new Forth crossing. In the past he was unequivocal that it was a job for the Scottish Futures Trust. He said:

"If we have a new bridge, a bond issue is definitely the way to do it",

and as recently as last May, his finance secretary agreed, when he said:

"Of course that's the type of project that could be taken forward under the auspices of this model".

What happened? When did the First Minister finally realise that his Scottish Futures Trust would not work and could not build a bridge?

The finance minister announced to Parliament last year that the Forth crossing would be built using traditional public procurement. The reason why is obvious: the Forth crossing is the biggest capital project in Scottish history it is on a strict timetable to be built by 2016-17 and it needs certainty of approach. Therefore, the public procurement model is the best way to build it. Unfortunately, it is also the only way to build it at present because it is the only method that can deliver the Forth crossing on timetable and on budget, which this Government is doing. The previous Administration could not even make a decision to build the bridge.

When the First Minister and the finance secretary said that the Scottish Futures Trust would build the Forth crossing, did he not realise then that it was the biggest capital project in Scotland and that it needed certainty and a timetable?

The truth is that the Scottish National Party wasted two years on the Scottish Futures Trust fantasy, and when that all fell apart it gave the Treasury two weeks to consider its daft alternative, which was to bring money back from the future to spend now. The most basic understanding of public finance tells us that that is not credible.

The First Minister is right that his Government announced in December how the bridge would be built. The most basic rules of integrity in Government tell us that we do not announce how we will spend money that we do not have. What on earth did the First Minister think he was doing in bringing the single most important transport project in Scotland—"in a lifetime", according to Mr Swinney—to Parliament without there being a financial package in place?

Yes—but we have the money in the capital budgets and we are building the bridge. That is the difference between the SNP and the Labour Party. The question is this: should we pay for the largest capital project in Scottish history over three years or over 20 years? Would Iain Gray buy his house over three years or would he do it over a longer period? It makes sense for the biggest capital investment in Scottish history to be profiled over a substantial period.

Iain Gray said that the Treasury was given two weeks to reply but, in fact, it took six weeks. I tell Iain Gray that the Treasury doesnae do anything in two weeks. There is a precedent in the international finance facility, which was dreamed up by the current Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. He argued that the public procurement process should be used because of the significance of that facility.

Iain Gray should pay close attention to the letter that came back from the Treasury because it blows out of the water any prospect of a private finance initiative or public-private partnership being the solution. It says in the letter that such an approach

"would not solve the budgeting problem"

because everything is now on-budget. Labour's old dodge of paying through the nose for PFI has been blown apart by the chief secretary's letter.

The trouble is that the Government has demonstrated its inability to build anything, even using traditional public procurement. Only yesterday, the Low Moss prison project was delayed for two years. That £100 million project is far smaller and far more straightforward than the new Forth crossing, but the Government has been unable to take it forward.

The Government has a track record on iconic transport projects. One of the First Minister's first acts was to cancel the Edinburgh airport rail link, which came to more than half a billion pounds—£650 million was saved. He certainly has not used that money to build any schools or hospitals. It would be a start on the new bridge, however. What has he done with that £650 million?

It is being spent on building the infrastructure of Scotland, including the M74 project, which is rather crucial to the economy of Scotland. [Applause.]

Order.

The financing of the Forth bridge is a matter of substantial public concern, so it has been of great interest to hear the reactions of Iain Gray's Labour spokespeople when they have been asked whether there would be tolls if they were in charge of building—or not building—the bridge. Des McNulty said on Radio Scotland on 10 December that they

"would look at all possible options."

Even more dramatically, David Whitton—standing in for Andy Kerr this week—was asked by Glenn Campbell whether the project would be a PPP or whether tolls would be considered. He replied, with that air of certainty that the Labour Party can conjure up in such moments of crisis:

"I don't know if that rules them out or not."

With Labour, it would be no bridge or a toll bridge.

The SNP inherited a budget that had the money for the M74 in it. It also had the money—[Interruption.] It also had the money—

Absolute rubbish.

Order.

That budget also contained the money for the Edinburgh airport rail link. What has the Government done with that money? It has not built schools or hospitals with it.

Somebody once said:

"He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else."

The First Minister always has plenty of excuses, but we do not want to hear them. We want to hear how he will deliver what Scotland needs with the powers that he has and using the £30 billion at his disposal. That is the business of a serious Government, not penning fan mail to Sean Connery. Scotland needs schools, hospitals and a new Forth crossing, but the First Minister needs a fight with Westminster to hide behind. When will the First Minister start putting the interests of Scotland first, instead of the interests of the SNP?

The SNP always puts the interests of Scotland first. That is one of the major defining differences between the SNP and the London Labour Party. [Applause.]

Order.

In fact, 71 schools have been finished or substantially refurbished during our term of office.

Oh!

Seventy-one. That is—[Laughter.]

Order.

That is well on the way to the 250 that were promised in the Government's programme. The Labour Party does not like it, but facts are chiels that winna ding: 71 school projects have been taken forward in this term of office.

Not by you.

Order.

As far as the Government is concerned—[Interruption.]

Order. When I ask for order, I expect to get it. Sorry, First Minister.

Even although it is the new year, Presiding Officer, you hope for a great deal from the Labour Party. I am hoping for a realisation that Labour's PPP/PFI dodge has been blown out of the water. It is not just that the Government must do as it is doing—building the greatest construction project in Scottish history on time and on budget—but we, as a Parliament, should recognise that we need the powers of a normal Parliament and a normal Government so that we can progress such capital projects in the best and most cost-effective way. That is the fundamental difference between a Government that is standing up for Scotland and a Labour Party that is waiting to hear from Westminster what it is allowed to do.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1323)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

In the 1990s, the Conservative Government secured land for a new Forth crossing. In 2007 there was, at least, a Scottish National Party manifesto commitment to realise the plan. The new Forth crossing will be one of the most iconic and important transport projects for Scotland in generations. Surely any First Minister worth his salt would have spent the past 18 months working out not just the design of the bridge but how to pay for it.

The public and Parliament want to know why a funding request to the Treasury on such an enormous project, which has such financial implications, was submitted only 14 days before the announcement. The First Minister just said—I quote him verbatim—that

"the Treasury doesnae do anything in two weeks".

If the First Minister is serious about the project, why has he spurned my party's offer of talks with our shadow Treasury team at Westminster to find a way forward? Is his refusal more evidence of his real agenda? Is it the case that he does not want to find a solution but wants only another row?

I am afraid that I was not aware of the offer from the shadow Treasury team. However, I have received an offer from the Treasury team, which Mr Swinney has accepted, to reach an amicable settlement on the issue.

We have specified how the Forth crossing will be paid for: it will be built and paid for by conventional public procurement. Already, the advantages of that have been shown by the reduction in cost by £1.7 billion, because our approach provides certainty on how the project can be delivered.

The point about capital reprofiling is not about whether the Forth bridge will be built—it will be built—but about whether it will be accounted for over three years or over a longer period, which is the approach that any sensible business or family would take to a capital project. We know that PPP/PFI has been blown out of the water and we know that Labour is thinking about tolling the bridge. Perhaps Annabel Goldie, on behalf of the shadow Treasury team, can say what she thinks would be a better method than our chosen method of conventional public procurement, to deliver value for money for the people of Scotland.

It is a bit difficult for my party's shadow Treasury team at Westminster to hold discussions with the Scottish Government when the First Minister does not even know that the request has been made and special advisers have already spurned the request. That demonstrates the impotent approach to a vital issue.

The First Minister knew what he wanted two years ago. He loves the limelight but shirks the hard graft. He would open a can of beans sooner than he would open discussions with Westminster. He would rather burn bridges with Westminster than build bridges in Scotland.

There is only one conclusion: for the First Minister, this is not about building a bridge in Scotland but is yet again about picking a fight with Westminster. For him, it is a blame game. It is the politics of grudge and gripe, grievance and girn. Will he admit that this is about not Scotland's national interest but parochial Scottish National Party interest? Will he admit that he is putting his party before his country?

It is best that we pursue the offer of talks with the Treasury, which says that it will respond constructively, before we consider talks with the shadow team—irrespective of who knows about them. Now that Annabel Goldie has informed me of the offer, I look forward to hearing the shadow Conservative team's views on how to finance a bridge.

The SNP knows how to finance the bridge. We will do so by conventional public procurement. We know that we are taking the money out of the capital budgets and we have already made substantial efficiencies and savings in that regard. I hope to be around to attend the opening of a Forth crossing that has been built by the SNP Government under conventional procurement. I might have to wait longer to find out from any other party how it proposes to finance the bridge, given that the other parties' chosen or favoured schemes of PFI have been blown out of the water. I live in hope that at some stage during the next few months a semblance of an idea will emerge from the other parties—whether or not that happens in talks with shadow teams—on how they would build the bridge. We know how we will build it: on time and on budget.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1324)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the Scottish people.

I have a letter that was sent to all eligible staff at the Scottish Inter Faith Council on 11 December. It is their redundancy notice, which was sent by the convener of the executive committee, Major Alan Dixon. He writes:

"despite every reasonable attempt made by the SIFC Executive Committee on your behalf, core grant funding from Scottish Government beyond 16 January 2009 has not yet managed to be secured … we are hereby giving you notice that your employment with SIFC will terminate on 16 January 2009."

Can the First Minister explain why it is the right time to risk closure of the Inter Faith Council through Government dithering and delay?

I am glad to inform Tavish Scott that the Inter Faith Council will not be closed, because the matter has been resolved. I hope that he believes that that is an example of effective action by the SNP Government.

I am delighted to hear that, but the First Minister needs to explain why redundancy notices were issued to all the staff at that time. If that is the case, we want that information to be put on the record and placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre today.

It is difficult to understand why, at this time of year, when the world is in the state that we see on our television news every day and when we have just had a parliamentary debate on Gaza, the Scottish Inter Faith Council was forced to issue redundancy notices before it could get straight answers from the Government. If the First Minister can now clarify exactly when the situation was resolved, we would all welcome that information.

Tavish Scott's correct response would have been to say, "I welcome the assurances that the First Minister has given. The Parliament should unite in welcoming the work of the Inter Faith Council." All organisations must submit their applications for funding, which must go through due process. Thanks to the intervention of the relevant minister, that due process has been completed. The Inter Faith Council's funding is secure and the damaging effects that Tavish Scott was worried about will not come to pass. In this new year, cannot he find it in his heart to welcome the Government's effective action?

I certainly welcome that action. All I am asking the First Minister to do is to put on the record in Parliament exactly when that action was taken and why redundancy notices had to be issued. Can he do that today, please?

I welcome the fact that Tavish Scott has got round to welcoming our action. The record is this: when the issue came to pass because the funding position had not been resolved, the relevant minister intervened and resolved it. That is what happened—that is the process of events. I would have thought that any reasonable person, of whom there are plenty in the Inter Faith Council, would regard that as an example of effective government in action. No matter how many times Tavish Scott asks the question, he should welcome the fact that the issue—about which he was, no doubt, genuinely concerned—has been resolved.

---

Forth Crossing

To ask the First Minister what implications the decision by HM Treasury to refuse the proposed funding package for the new Forth crossing will have for capital spending by the Scottish Government. (S3F-1346)

The Scottish Government is prepared to fully provide for the construction costs of the Forth replacement crossing because its immense economic importance to Scotland means that the project has top priority in our capital programme. That view is widely shared in Scotland. However, if no adjustment is made to Scotland's capital budgets from the Treasury, there will be a substantial impact on other capital projects in the period 2013 to 2016, when the crossing will be under construction. We have sought HM Treasury's assistance in reprofiling the capital budget over a number of years to reduce that impact. The initial reply is disappointing, but offers further constructive discussions, which are being arranged and will be conducted in that spirit.

Does the First Minister agree that what that case and the current economic situation show is that it is essential that the anomaly whereby local authorities and Network Rail have borrowing powers but the Scottish Government does not is rectified as soon as possible?

Yes, indeed. That question gets to the very heart of the issue. Previous Governments had the option of using PPP and PFI to get round the lack of borrowing powers but, as the letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicates, that is no longer an option. Indeed, it is obviously the worst option because if we proposed a Labour-type scheme for PPP, not only would the entire capital cost fall on a single year, which would swallow more than half the capital budget in that year, but we would then have to pay for the next 30 years the on-going borrowing costs of PPP. We would end up paying for the bridge twice—no wonder the Labour Party is thinking of tolling the bridge.

A new Forth crossing is of the utmost importance not only to my constituents in Dunfermline West but to the whole Scottish economy. Given that the Scottish Futures Trust and holding out the begging bowl to Westminster have failed, where is the credibility in the First Minister's assurances that a new crossing will be completed in 2016, when no funding is in place?

The funding is in place. That has been done by traditional public procurement. The advantage of doing it that way has been demonstrated by the substantial savings that have already been made in the cost estimates for the bridge. When, or if, any of the other parties comes forward with a better funding mechanism than the certainty of public procurement under our proposals, of course we will listen. However, we know that we can build a bridge on time and on budget.

If the on-going commitment to an additional road bridge puts other projects—such as public transport investment—at risk, it will make the current Government's transport policy even less sustainable. In the light of the Treasury's decision on the matter, is it not time to take the cheapest, quickest and most sensible option and fix the bridge that we already have?

The majority of people in the chamber, and certainly the majority of people in Scotland, do not believe that we can risk the closure of one of the integral links in the Scottish transport system, which would be the inevitable result of anticipating that it would be possible to sort the current bridge without having to close it for a substantial time. I think the decision to have the new Forth crossing carries substantial support.

In terms of the risk to other transport projects, the risk is that there will be delay if we are not allowed to spread the cost of this huge capital project over time. The analogy—I hope that Patrick Harvie will support this aspect—is with the ability that we have in respect of rail improvements, which are substantial across Scotland at present, for Network Rail to borrow. That has allowed us to procure a huge programme of rail facilities across Scotland. That is the mechanism that we need for all transport projects so that such uniquely costly projects can be spread sensibly over time.

---

International Development Policy (Gaza)

To ask the First Minister whether the Cabinet will discuss its international development policy in the light of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. (S3F-1326)

Cabinet discussed the situation in Gaza on Tuesday. Our international development policy, as part of our wider international framework, sets out our position as a responsible country in the world, and already enables the Scottish Government to consider humanitarian assistance, where appropriate. We are in contact with non-governmental organisations in Scotland that are operating in the region and we stand ready, as the Deputy First Minister has indicated, to consider bids for support for humanitarian assistance in Gaza.

The Scottish Government joins a wide range of people in the international community in calling for an immediate ceasefire and free access for humanitarian supplies and aid workers, and I have written to the Israeli ambassador to reiterate that call.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. On the 13th day of continuous bombing in the Gaza strip, with almost 700 Palestinian deaths, it is fitting that the Scottish Cabinet has discussed how we can respond to this disaster in a humanitarian way. That will complement the £7 million that has been announced by the United Kingdom Government to go directly to Gaza. Does the First Minister hope, as I do, that the Scottish Parliament will tonight add its voice to the international call for a cease-fire? Will the First Minister be able to support the efforts of Edinburgh Direct Aid and others who are standing by to take to Gaza medical equipment and aid that have been donated by health boards, when it is safe to do so? Critically, can the First Minister consider helping in the appeal to Scottish hospitals to donate emergency medicines, where possible? Such medicines are desperately needed, and doctors in Gaza have made a special appeal for them.

The whole of Parliament and Scotland have been shocked by the scenes that we have seen from Gaza. People understand and know that warfare that is conducted in such a confined strip of land inevitably carries with it the risk of substantial civilian casualties, which is what we have seen.

On all three points that Pauline McNeill made, let me respond constructively. First, as the Deputy First Minister said, we stand ready to help NGOs that have plans for the area and to accept bids for assistance because we want to do our bit to help the humanitarian situation. Secondly, we hope that Parliament joins us in calling for an immediate cease-fire and humanitarian assistance. Thirdly, we will look imaginatively and constructively at any proposals whereby the skills and abilities of the Scottish health service can be of assistance at this time. In all three areas, we would like to do even more: what we have outlined is the least that we can do. In terms of how Parliament—and the Government—presents itself, we think we are doing the right thing by the people of Gaza in contributing to the international effort.

I noted the First Minister's appeal on 3 January for an immediate Israeli cease-fire. This morning, he has told us that he has written to the Israeli ambassador to call for a cease-fire. In any future appeals, would it not be wiser to call for an abiding cease-fire from both sides?

I am happy to say that: that is what "cease-fire" means and the Deputy First Minister said it today. The reiteration of the call to the Israeli ambassador has come because Israel is a state and states are bound by international law in terms of how they conduct military activities. It is entirely reasonable that we, as a Parliament and as a Government, make that call. Governments and states must abide by international law in their conduct of military activities and the implications for civilians. That is the law of civilisation as well as international law. I know that Ted Brocklebank supports that view.

Is the First Minister aware of the increases in anti-Semitism and in Islamophobic attacks that follow upsurges in violence or tension in the middle east? Will he follow the previous Executive's example in announcing new funds to improve security for Scotland's minority communities, particularly to tackle vulnerable sites such as faith-based schools, mosques and synagogues?

We have responded constructively in other times of tension that had implications for community relations in Scotland and we are ready to do so again.

---

Economy

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government plans to take in 2009 to support the economy. (S3F-1340)

The Scottish Government is taking a range of measures within its powers to support families and businesses affected by the economic downturn. One of those in the budget bill will be the welcome extension of relief on business rates for tens of thousands of small businesses under the small business bonus scheme. We look for the support and good will of all members in ensuring the passage of that important measure in the upcoming budget bill.

It is amazing what can be done by adopting Conservative policies.

In that spirit, given that not a single business organisation in the country has a good word to say on local income tax, can the First Minister give us some clarification? Over the Christmas period, an aide to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth said that:

"The reality of local income tax is that the proposal contains key advantages for Scottish business."

Can the First Minister name them?

The key advantage, as set out, is that a tax cut would help the economy and the people of Scotland. The other key advantage of a local income tax is fairness, in that it would be based on the ability to pay. Given that Conservative members supported our council tax freeze because, like us, they—I hope—understand the iniquity of the council tax, would it not be better to go the whole hog by supporting the abolition of the unfair council tax?

Does the First Minister agree that, in a period of economic downturn and rising unemployment, the worst possible measure that the Scottish Government could take would be to implement £800 million-worth of public spending cuts, as has been proposed by some? Equally damaging would be any prospect of Mr Swinney's budget being voted down by Parliament, because that would also lead to higher unnecessary levels of unemployment.

There seems to be a choice of public spending cuts in Scotland from the other political parties in the Parliament. There is the £800 million of cuts proposed by the Liberal Democrats, although we have no idea how they would be made. There is also the £500 million of cuts by the Labour Party, which I read in the paper this morning is already starting to have implications for Glasgow City Council. Perhaps now, after the Christmas recess, the Labour Party will admit that that amounts to £500 million-worth of cuts in the Scottish economy.

Earlier this week, I was astonished to find the leader of the Opposition at Westminster joining in the call for public spending cuts by suggesting what I assume will be another £500 million of cuts, not for next year or the year after next, but for this year. So we have a choice between cuts of £800 million, £500 million the year after next, or £500 million more from the Tories. It is little wonder that, as the people of Scotland consider the array of cuts that are proposed by the Opposition parties, this Administration will defend public services and be in office for a substantial length of time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you consider the fact that during First Minister's question time, the First Minister suggested that the £1.7 billion reduction in the cost of the new Forth bridge is down to the funding mechanism? Will the First Minister reflect on his words and accept that at this morning's Transport Scotland briefing for local MSPs, we were informed that significant parts of the reduction were down to a range of changes, including loss of the multimodal element of the proposed bridge and the reduction in the amount of related road building?

As the member well knows, that is not a point of order for me. However, it is now on the record.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—