Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, September 8, 2011

Official Report 1075KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00102)

Later today, I am meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, to discuss, among other things, the job-creating powers that we need added to the Scotland Bill. We will be discussing the analysis that was published on general release at 9.30 this morning using the general equilibrium model of the Scottish economy, which shows that, over the next 20 years, a reduction in corporation tax of just 3 per cent would boost Scotland’s gross domestic product by 1.4 per cent, raise investment in the Scottish economy by 1.9 per cent and lead to an increase of 27,000 jobs in Scotland.

I am sure that when Iain Gray gets the chance to read that analysis, he will, like his predecessor Wendy Alexander would have done, welcome the idea that this Parliament should have access to such job-creating powers.

I would certainly welcome debate on the future of Scotland. In 2009, the First Minister said that the people of Scotland were ready to have their say on separation. Now he is scared to let them have that say because he is scared of the answer. Is that not the simple truth?

Obviously, as Iain Gray prepares for his imminent retirement—I do not know whether it is imminent, actually—he has not had time to glance at the opinion polls on the constitutional question, in which there are substantial movements in the direction of independence.

Iain Gray will remember the election campaign—I know that he will remember it because he spent the first 20 minutes of his speech yesterday talking about it. During that election campaign, we clearly set out, not least in the leadership debate in Perth, that the Scotland Bill and job-creating powers were the immediate constitutional priority, and that the referendum bill would be in the second half of this session of Parliament. Surely lain Gray would not want me to go back on a clear commitment to the Scottish people.

What I do not understand is why the First Minister goes back on a clear commitment that he made in 2009. Oh, actually, I do. The answer lies in the opinion poll that showed that 60 per cent of Scots reject his vision of the future of Scotland.

The delay would not matter if the First Minister’s ducking and diving was not damaging Scotland. Last week, the Confederation of British Industry said that it is damaging business confidence. These are the people who create wealth and jobs, and the First Minister told them that they should not blunder into politics. Is this Alex Salmond’s Scotland? Is this his independence debate: “agree with me or shut up”?

I remind Iain Gray of a little bit of recent history: 2009 was when the Labour Party in this Parliament blocked the referendum bill. In 2011, we stood for election and won a resounding majority. If, of course, having won that resounding majority, we had gone back on what we said during the election campaign, Iain Gray would be saying, “You’ve gone back on the election campaign. You’re not making jobs the priority.” He would be in the same ridiculous position as Michael Moore, who said that we should be concentrating on our own powers and then, in the same speech, demanded answers on independence.

On job creation and the reaction of the people who create jobs in Scotland, I point out to Iain Gray the recent announcements from Amazon, Gamesa, State Street, Doosan Power, Ryanair, EasyJet, Tesco Bank, Virgin Money, Blackrock, INEOS/PetroChina and Mitsubishi Power Systems—all companies creating jobs, partly thanks to the policies of this Government, and all companies that have confidence in the economic future of Scotland.

Let us look at recent history. In 2007, when my predecessor, Wendy Alexander, said that she would not block a referendum, the First Minister would not have one. In 2009, when he knew that he could not have one, he wanted one. In 2011, when he can have one, he is not going to have one. That is the recent history on the question.

It is not just the CBI. Even the First Minister’s personal public relations outlet, the Scottish Sun, said this morning that the First Minister should get on with it.

Lovely—

Mr Swinney.

The Sun agrees with the CBI. Is the First Minister going to give it the same answer? Is he going to drop a note to his penpal Rupert Murdoch, telling him that he should not blunder into politics?

I honestly do not think that Rupert Murdoch is the strongest line of questioning for the Labour Party, but I am touched by the bringing of newspapers into the chamber. At some point, Iain Gray will go online and then he will not have to bring the whole newspaper.

We said clearly in the election campaign that our fundamental priority at the moment is jobs and the economy. In his speech yesterday, Iain Gray took 21 minutes to mention the economy and jobs. We also said that the priority on the constitution was to get job-creating powers into the Scotland Bill, and that is what we are trying to do. We said that the independence referendum will take place in the second half of this parliamentary session, and that is what we will do.

I do not think that going back through the history is particularly comforting for Iain Gray. If I remember correctly, it was in response to Wendy Alexander’s declaration that Iain Gray had his speaking-Portuguese interview, as he tried to explain the contortions of Labour’s position. Then, when Wendy was removed as Labour leader, Iain Gray came in and immediately reversed the policy. Rather than take lessons in political strategy from Iain Gray, we will stand on the policy that won us such a resounding victory in this year’s election.

I am always interested to find out where the First Minister takes lessons in political strategy—sometimes he does so in surprising places. A friend went to a fortune-teller in Dundee last week, and there, displayed on Gypsy Amalia’s caravan, was a photo of the palmist’s celebrity client, Alex Salmond. Maybe we should ask Gypsy Amalia when the referendum will be, because the First Minister does not seem to know.

By the way, if anyone wants their fortune told, if they ask Amalia how much it is for a reading with her, the answer that they get is, “You can never tell, dear. It might be a fiver, it might be 30 quid.” Is that not exactly the First Minister’s plan for separatism: “Say yes first, and then I’ll tell you how much it costs”—the strategy of the snake-oil salesman down the ages?

I recognise the name Gypsy Amalia. She is a regular attender at the Turriff show in my constituency. It is absolutely correct: in 2006, I visited her stall and she said that the SNP would win the 2007 election. [Laughter.] And lo and behold, it came to pass—and I did not even have to give her any money! Now I am going to make a return visit to Gypsy Amalia, and I am going to ask her the most difficult question in Scottish politics: not “Who is going to be the next Labour leader?” but “When is the contest going to be?”

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00097)

Mr Swinney and Mr Crawford are meeting the Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon, but I am looking forward to meeting Professor Joseph Stiglitz, who has today accepted my invitation to join Scotland’s Council of Economic Advisers. I am sure that, when Annabel Goldie finds out who he is, she will welcome the fact that one of the world’s finest economic minds and most famous economists is putting his services at Scotland’s disposal.

Yesterday, the First Minister told us in his statement that we must move away from the European model of deficit-driven states. Of course, the European states with the biggest deficit problems are in the euro zone and their currency is the euro. There are masses of unanswered questions about the First Minister’s independence plans, but I will pick one that relates to the currency, which I hope he can answer without reference to Gypsy Amalia.

If the First Minister gets his way, what is his personal preference—the British pound or the euro?

I can do better than that. I can ask Annabel Goldie to read, “Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conversation”, which was published 18 months ago. Paragraphs 3.33 to 3.35 explain exactly that position.

Which is?

I know that the last thing that the Conservatives want to do at the moment is read newspapers or any other documents. The last time I spoke to Annabel Goldie, I thought that it would be the last time she would be asking me a question. I now understand that it might be the last time any Conservative is asking me a question in this Parliament.

The document that I referred to says that we should stay in the sterling area until the Scottish people decide to do otherwise—that is in paragraphs 3.33 to 3.35. That seems to be a pretty clear answer and I hope that Annabel Goldie will accept it.

It seems to be anything but clear. In his statement yesterday, the First Minister commended to the Parliament and Scotland certain policies and political objectives, not least independence. Let us get this straight. This is a First Minister who wants independence but will not tell us the date of the referendum or the question that is to be asked and who does not know what currency he wants the country to have if he wins.

This leopard has some spots. As First Minister, Mr Salmond has rushed to the airwaves—Radio Scotland one day, Radio Catalonia the next—to denigrate the British pound and praise the euro. I will ask him again, because Scotland needs to know. Does he, personally, want the British pound or does he want the euro? He cannot go on ducking questions on independence for ever. This is one question that he can answer. What is his answer?

I will now quote from the document, so that Annabel Goldie can go away and scrutinise it—because, obviously, she hasnae read it. It says:

“Under independence, Scotland would have the opportunity to choose the monetary framework and currency that best suited the needs of the Scottish economy ... Scotland would continue to operate within the sterling system until a decision to join the Euro by the people of Scotland in a referendum when the economic conditions were right.”

That seems to me to be a pretty clear statement, especially when compared with the Conservative Party’s convulsions on this issue—I was in the House of Commons when Ken Clarke was the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and the Labour Party’s contortions, which have caused it to reverse its position many times.

I want to know whether, when we have a new Conservative party, after the current one has disbanded, the policies will change or will simply be the same old stuff under a different banner. I ask the question—[Interruption.]

I draw attention to the answers that I heard being given and the insight that I had when I watched Jeremy Paxman interviewing the new perhaps-leader of a perhaps-party in Scotland. Most people here will not have seen that interview, because it was shown only in England but, nonetheless, the answers to the Conservative Party’s problems with being not fit for purpose, with failing, with having no future and with having to adapt or die might be contained in that interview. I say to Annabel Goldie that it takes more than a change of name or a change of leader to give a political party any chance of recovery.

One of the welcome consequences of my condition, which I think is described as being unplugged, is that I am responsible for raising with the First Minister only matters of the present. Matters of the future, I leave to others.

It is transparent to me that, rather than answer an important and basic question, the First Minister would run for cover and use all manner of camouflage and distraction to disguise the basic point that this man, who wants this country to be independent, does not even know what currency that independent country would have.

First I paraphrased it, then I read it out. It is there for Annabel Goldie to read on page 31 of the document, which was published 18 months ago.

I know that the last thing that Annabel Goldie wants to talk about is the future direction of her party, but it is a perfectly legitimate response to look upon the agonies and uncertainty of her party. After all, if it had the right policies and the right attitude towards Scotland, Annabel Goldie would be unleashed in this space, as opposed to being unleashed in that space. I say in all friendliness to Annabel Goldie that I always thought that she was unleashed before she was standing down as party leader.

Is the First Minister aware of the proposal by the parking management at Glasgow royal infirmary to raise parking fees by 62 per cent, which will have a severe impact on health service workers there?

As I know the member will appreciate, the private finance initiative contract under which those charges were introduced and in which they were contained was unfortunately signed by the previous Labour Administration. Much as we would have liked to adopt the same policy towards the PFI contracts as we did towards the vast majority of national health service hospitals under our control, it is simply not possible to do that without substantial expense on the public exchequer. It would of course have been great if, when it negotiated the PFI contracts, the previous Administration had paid even an iota of concentration to the protection of patients, staff and the public.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00099)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland will be discussed.

An hour ago, the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs recommended that the lifetime ban on gay men donating blood should be rescinded. What will the First Minister do in Scotland to respond to that report?

Willie Rennie will see that there is a news release that gives our response, which is basically that we are accepting the recommendations with the protections the committee recommended in terms of timescale.

That is good news and is very welcome. It is not the full equality that many of us have campaigned for, but it is a start. Similar bans have been relaxed in Australia, South Africa, Japan and Sweden and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service is committed to finding 65,000 more donors in the next year. The sooner the change is adopted, the sooner the service can add to the 100,000 patients it helps with blood transfusions every year and save lives. Will the First Minister personally promote this change and encourage more people to donate blood, whatever sexuality they have?

The answer to the last part of the question is certainly yes. We have accepted the recommendation, which is to end the lifetime ban on gay men giving blood. The expert committee recommended some safeguards for public safety. I do not think that any responsible Government would not accept those recommendations as well. In the Government’s response to the recommendations, it can be seen that we take the matter seriously and welcome the progress that is being made. Willie Rennie will accept that we have to go by the expert advice on the protections that have been laid into that progress. As for advocating that people give blood—most certainly I do.

---

Lockerbie (Access to Documents)

4. To ask the First Minister, in light of the reported discovery of documents relating to the Gaddafi regime’s connections with the United States and United Kingdom intelligence services, whether the Scottish Government has requested access to any such documents that might be relevant to the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. (S4F-00101)

Lockerbie remains an open case, concerning the involvement of others with Mr al-Megrahi in the atrocity that killed 270 people. The Crown Office will be able to continue to pursue lines of inquiry that become available.

The First Minister is aware that I, along with many others, believe that the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is insecure. I welcome the announcement of legislation to facilitate the publication of Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission reports on abandoned cases such as Lockerbie.

According to the First Minister’s answer, Lockerbie is an open case. Given that, is the Crown Office in active contact with the National Transitional Council in Libya to ensure the preservation of documentation that might relate to the atrocity? In the interests of justice, if such evidence exists, what steps will be taken to secure its delivery to Scotland?

I am pleased that Christine Grahame welcomes our intention to publish the SCCRC’s full statement of reasons to the court. We should do our best to facilitate that, because I understand that the statement contains substantial detail that might shed light on the SCCRC’s thinking when it referred the case to the court of appeal.

Christine Grahame asked about our contact with the Libyan National Transitional Council, in which we have made two things clear. First, Mr al-Megrahi is in compliance with his conditions. We do not seek his extradition, contrary to the ill-informed comments of people who have no locus in the matter whatever. Secondly, the investigation is open, as the Crown Office has always made clear. Along with the police, the Crown Office will continue to pursue any lines of inquiry that might arise. Of course, that involves protecting any evidence that would shed light on the issue. The National Transitional Council has indicated its willingness to maintain contact on the matter, but it made the reasonable point that its immediate focus is on restoring civil order and rebuilding services in Libya as the current conflict draws, I hope, to a close.

Following the discovery of documents in Tripoli that relate to co-operation between Colonel Gaddafi’s intelligence service, the Central Intelligence Agency and the British intelligence service, will the Scottish Government investigate the illegal use of Scottish airports for illegal rendition flights? Apart from anything else, regimes in the middle east are changing. We have an interest in ensuring that incoming Arab Governments realise that they can expect a much better deal from a Scottish Government than they got from Westminster.

I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to have a further look at that and to reply to Margo MacDonald. As she knows, in the previous parliamentary session, we looked with the Lord Advocate at whether Scottish airports were used in illegal rendition.

As for the documents that have come to light, it is no secret to the Scottish Government that the previous Labour Government wanted by any means whatever to have Mr Megrahi released back to Libya. I can say that I did not know of the extent of the co-operation that the documents seem to indicate. If it is true and confirmed, it will represent the most remarkable case of double standards—or perhaps no standards—that I have seen in international politics.

All that I can say to Margo MacDonald is that the Scottish Government took its decisions on the basis of due process and the precepts of Scots law.

---

Universities (Access)

5. To ask the First Minister what agreement the Scottish Government has made with universities regarding access arrangements for students from the rest of the United Kingdom. (S4F-00109)

Ideally, no student who attends a Scottish university should pay fees. However, given the UK Government’s misguided decision to introduce tuition fees of up to £9,000 per annum for students who attend universities in England, students from the rest of the UK who attend Scottish universities must be charged comparable fees, just as was done under the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration.

I remind the First Minister that, in introducing £9,000 fees, his colleague Mr Russell suggested that Scottish universities might wish to show restraint. To date, all universities in Scotland—bar one—have gone for the maximum of £9,000. Is that acceptable? With a fee of £36,000 for a four-year degree, the University of Edinburgh has the unenviable title of most expensive university in the whole UK. Is that fair for middle-income families?

I will begin by correcting Ken Macintosh. I am sure that he will want to have this correction, because it is important that we get the proper information. The University of Aberdeen, Glasgow Caledonian University and Heriot-Watt University have not set fees at the maximum of £9,000. In the case of Caledonian, the figure of £9,000 does not appear at all. All three universities have set three years of fees for a four-year course so, in other words, one year will be free. That means that, for those universities, the average fee per year is £6,250, which is less than the technical working group conclusion of £6,375.

Even if we include the University of Edinburgh, the average is £6,937. In defence of the University of Edinburgh, I point out that, as Ken Macintosh will know, it has announced substantial bursary and scholarship schemes to protect the diversity of the base of students who come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I hope that as many universities as possible follow the example of those three universities and that the average figure is close to the suggestion by the universities in the technical working group scenario.

A final and hugely important point is that, in the past few days, following a lot of publicity, the Student Awards Agency for Scotland has had a record number of calls—tens of thousands of them—many of which were from Scottish students who were worried because they saw the press and believed that the fees that were being quoted in the headlines would apply to them. It is therefore vital that, when we debate the issue and when it is reported in the press, it is made clear to every Scottish student that, in terms of protecting access to our universities, the rocks will melt with the sun before I see Scottish students charged tuition fees.

Notwithstanding that answer, will the First Minister tell us how many places for Scottish and European Union students will be cut in the next five years as a result of the pressure on universities to take far more students from the rest of the UK?

I would have thought that Liz Smith would welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, in negotiation with our universities, has protected the numbers of Scottish students who have access to university and college places. That is in stark and overwhelming contrast to the policy that her party’s Government is pursuing south of the border, which has the greatest threat to access, particularly for students from lower-income families. Maybe it is the embarrassment of seeing and having to answer for the misguided policies that are being pursued from Westminster that has led the deputy leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland to advocate its disbandment which, incidentally, is the first popular thing that a Tory has said in Scotland for a generation.

---

Economic Growth

6. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to boost economic growth. (S4F-00103)

Scotland now has lower unemployment, higher employment and lower economic inactivity rates than the United Kingdom as a whole. The latest figures for the last three months show the remarkable situation that the increase in employment in Scotland by 24,000 over the quarter from April to June was equivalent to 96 per cent of the aggregate increase for the UK of 25,000. That figure of 24,000 out of 25,000 indicates the importance of working hard to secure employment and growth for the Scottish economy.

I could not help but notice yesterday’s poll in The Times that showed that a majority of Scots, including a majority of Labour and Lib Dem supporters, are in favour of devolving more tax powers to the Parliament, including control over corporation tax. Does the First Minister agree that there is an overwhelming appetite among the people of Scotland to have control of those powers devolved as a matter of urgency to aid the Scottish economy during the current period of recovery?

We have had two polls in the past week. The first showed a majority support for independence for the first time, I think, in a number of years. The poll by Ipsos MORI in The Times showed an overwhelming majority in favour of full tax-raising powers for the Parliament. That tends to suggest to me that, given the economic circumstances, and in the face of the misguided policies that are being pursued from Westminster, people in Scotland are increasingly recognising that, to generate growth, output and employment in the economy, particularly in the interests of young people in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament and Government need all the economic tools to get on with that job.

Has the First Minister seen this week’s reports that the Aberdeen western peripheral route might now not be completed until 2019? If so, will he instruct works to begin immediately on the Haudagain roundabout and at Balmedie without waiting for the bypass’s completion in order to unblock the logjam of projects and boost economic growth?

Lewis Macdonald, who I know now has responsibility for the whole of the north-east of Scotland, will understand that these projects go together and are important together. Like another north-east of Scotland MSP whom I saw speak in this morning’s debate, I regret bitterly the fact that people are pursuing to the nth degree through the court system obstacles to a project that is, I think, hugely supported across all the parties in Scotland and the vast majority of people in the north-east of Scotland. We will do our level best to find every possible way of accelerating that project within the powers and proper disposals that we have but I am sure that Lewis Macdonald would be the first person to criticise me if I tried to interfere with the judicial processes in Scotland.

That ends First Minister’s question time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer—[Interruption.]

Can we get Mr Findlay’s microphone on, please?

Presiding Officer, when you were elected, you—[Interruption.]

Perhaps you could move to Ms Eadie’s mike.

I think that it is okay now. It is the new system.

When you were elected, Presiding Officer, you advised that you would seek to give more time to back benchers at First Minister’s question time and many of us support you in that. However, will you urgently look again at the issue? Over the past while, the First Minister has continued to make lengthy speeches in reply to questions, giving fewer and fewer back benchers the opportunity to ask them. We support you in your desire in this respect but will you please look at the matter again?

Thank you for that point of order. However, Mr Findlay, you will find that only one member who pressed their button to ask a supplementary was not called and I think that I got in a large number of back benchers and supplementaries from every party. Of course, I will continue to reflect on what you have said.

12:32 Meeting suspended.

14:15 On resuming—