Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, September 9, 2010

Official Report 1060KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2531)

I am delighted that I and the party leaders will shortly be joining the Cardinal of Scotland to launch the new tartan that was commissioned to celebrate the visit of His Holiness Pope Benedict to Scotland next week. I notice that all the party leaders are sporting the tartan in one form or another. I am sure that the whole chamber will wish to join me in saying how much we are looking forward to the visit of His Holiness to Scotland next week.

Has the First Minister had the privilege of visiting the construction of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier at Rosyth or on the Clyde?

No, I have not had that privilege, but I know that my deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon is in constant touch with both management and unions at the Clyde yards, including being in touch with BAE this very morning, for obvious reasons.

I know that this is sometimes difficult, but I can give the chamber some information on how we are proceeding with contact with the United Kingdom Government on what is a hugely serious issue. We received an invitation from Liam Fox on 5 August to attend a quadrilateral on the strategic defence review. We accepted that invitation and suggested 6 September as a date for such a meeting. That did not prove possible, because I understand that the Northern Irish delegation was not able to attend on that date.

We are becoming increasingly concerned that if the quadrilateral meeting between ministers does not take place quickly, there is a possibility that decisions will be made before it does. Therefore, we have prepared a dossier, which we will share with BAE management and the unions in Rosyth and on the Clyde and community interests in the north-east of Scotland. I want as far as possible to get the maximum Scottish unity on this issue, if we are to make an effective submission to the Ministry of Defence.

I would certainly recommend that the First Minister finds the opportunity to visit the construction of these carriers. Last month in Rosyth I joined workers who were constructing sections of the first carrier and stood on what will be the deck of the biggest naval ship ever built in Scotland, or indeed Britain. It is truly remarkable in its complexity and scale, but even more remarkable are the pride and skill of those who are building it. To even think of cancelling that first carrier at this stage is crazy.

In the First Minister’s dossier, can we be sure that he makes the case that both carriers must be built?

Yes. The full implications of the cancellation of one or both projects will be spelled out in that dossier. The extent of possible job losses would range from 5,000 to 10,000 across Scotland, depending on how one calculates the figures. It should be understood that there are other threats to the defence infrastructure in Scotland, in particular in the north-east of Scotland, where huge job losses would also be possible if adverse decisions were made.

Our intention is to unite as much opinion as possible. I know that that is difficult because we are making a submission to a Government that might be making proposals to the contrary. However, everything that we know about the history of shipbuilding on the Clyde and elsewhere and the key battles in Scotland tells us that the maximum political unity in this chamber is likely to yield the best results.

It is absolutely the case that we must marshal the most united campaign in defence of the contracts. That is the lesson from previous occasions, for example when Rosyth was betrayed by previous Governments in the early 1990s.

This morning I spoke to trade union conveners in Rosyth and on the Clyde. They are concerned not just for the jobs in their yards but for the future of shipbuilding in the United Kingdom. I know that the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry are making their views known on the consequences of a decision to cancel the contracts. In a spirit of unity, will the First Minister join me and the trade unionists in making cross-party representations to the Ministry of Defence, in London if necessary, to save Scotland’s shipbuilding industry?

May I suggest that we proceed on this basis? As I said, we have responded to an invitation from the Secretary of State for Defence and agreed to take part in a ministerial meeting. The letter, which I have with me, says that the meeting is to take place before final decisions are made—that is made clear. Therefore, we are concerned about this morning’s reports and other reports during the past few weeks. Hence the submission that we have drawn up. I am happy to share the submission with all the parties in the Parliament. Of course, it might be that there is not cross-party unity on certain aspects. However, if we can establish unity in terms of an understanding of the full implications for the economy and skills base in Scotland, that will be an achievement in itself.

I know Jamie Webster extremely well and know that he and his shop steward colleagues would like us to proceed in that way. I know that the community interests in north-east Scotland would like us to proceed in that way. Let us see how much unity we can get behind the submission that we make to the MOD and let us ensure that we get it in before the final decisions are made.

There is no disagreement between the First Minister and me about the consequences of a decision to cancel the contracts. Cancellation would mean the loss of 4,000 jobs in Govan, 2,500 jobs in Rosyth and perhaps as many as 10,000 supply-chain jobs. Hundreds of apprenticeships would go. Cancellation would not only in effect end shipbuilding in Scotland but undermine our engineering base, which is so important not just for the future of shipbuilding but for other, new industries, such as renewables.

The importance of the decision, which is imminent, cannot be overstated. Later today I expect to see the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I will certainly raise the issue with him. The dossier is welcome and the meeting that the First Minister is arranging is welcome. For the sake of unity, we must make the argument in as many places, in as many ways and with as many voices as we can do. The case cannot simply be a Government case. That is why I am asking the First Minister to work with me and the trade unions to make cross-party representation in support of the Scottish Government’s case. Like the First Minister, I do not know how wide the cross-party support that we get will be, but surely the voice of the First Minister and the leader of the Opposition would be a good start.

We established that consensus and agreement in my answer to the first question, so we should not struggle to remove it by the time we reach the answer to the final question.

Let me finish by making the following remarks. Yes, I agree to sharing the submission with all parties in the Parliament. Yes, where we agree—and there are key points of agreement with regard to shipbuilding and the aircraft bases in the north-east—in my view we should submit jointly, not just between parties but with worker and management interests, which are keenly involved as well. That seems to be a sensible proposition, which will give us the maximum leverage.

Of course, that will not stop political parties putting in submissions on elements on which we disagree, for example on whether the Trident missile system should be included in the strategic defence review. Let us achieve the maximum unity where we can do. I said in answer to Iain Gray’s first question and I repeat: I agree with him. I hope that that will carry the maximum unity across the Parliament.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. Presiding Officer, I think that all members in the chamber would join me in sending our sympathy to the Prime Minister on the sad death of his father.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2532)

I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland next Thursday.

I say to Annabel Goldie that I sent the Prime Minister a personal letter of condolence yesterday and I expect that all members share her thoughts on the matter.

I thank the First Minister for his comments.

Yesterday, a humiliated First Minister ditched the defining policy of him and his Scottish National Party Government. The independence bill went through the shredder. The First Minister will have to cope with the spasm gripping his fundamentalist corps, his flagging troops and the anguish on his back benches, but what taxpayers want to know is how on earth the First Minister can justify spending £2 million of their money on party-political propaganda, which has turned the national conversation into a nationalist con.

First, the costs of the national conversation were £400,000, not £2 million. However, whether they were £400,000 or £2 million, they seem to me to be considerably less than the estimated £90 million cost of the alternative vote referendum that the Conservative party proposes to hold on the polling day for the Scottish Parliament elections next year. I find many things about that referendum remarkable, but for the Conservatives to propose a referendum that they do not support on an electoral system that they do not support with the intention of campaigning against it when they get to the referendum strikes me as more remarkable than anything else that can have happened in connection with referendums not just in the history of this Parliament but in the history of politics.

Presiding Officer, the First Minister and I are responsible for events within this Parliament.

The First Minister has confirmed that his independence bill is now nothing more than a piece of SNP campaigning propaganda. It was bad enough that he gambled millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on his failed policy, but it would be a scandal and an outrage if any more public money were squandered on his party-political campaign. Will he guarantee today that not one penny more of Government money and not one minute more of civil service time will be spent on this blatant SNP self-promotion, which would be a crass abuse of taxpayers’ money?

The proposal for a bill on independence and financial responsibility is now complete and will be published shortly. As I said yesterday, we will now take the case to the people of Scotland for endorsement.

It was said in yesterday’s debate that, alone among the Opposition parties in this Parliament, the Conservatives have been consistent in their opposition to the bill. However, I found out that there were suggestions some years ago that Annabel Goldie’s deputy leader had tinkered with the idea of approving of an independence referendum. Up until that point I had not realised that, secretly, across the chamber, there are people who might well want to support an independence referendum either now or, as Iain Gray has said, at some time in the future. Hopefully, the verdict of the Scottish people next May will concentrate minds wonderfully.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2533)

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

Yesterday, the First Minister highlighted the importance of creating jobs in Scotland’s renewable energy industry and gave a guarantee of 20,000 apprenticeships. Is the new course for wind turbine technicians at Carnegie College in Dunfermline one of those that is to be guaranteed?

The points are as stated: the estimate for jobs in Scotland’s renewables sector is 20,000 in the fairly immediate future—some announcements coming up shortly will confirm that ambition—and the figure of 20,000 apprenticeships is, of course, also correct.

At some point, Tavish Scott will have to accept that various public bodies not only in Scotland but elsewhere are planning budget reductions. That might have something to do with the comprehensive spending review that his colleague Danny Alexander is undertaking at the present moment.

“It wasnae me” did not last long there. [Laughter.]

Order.

The German company Siemens has worked with Carnegie College to create the first-ever four-year wind energy technicians course. The company wants to triple the numbers every year and yet it is made to traipse between the Scottish Qualifications Authority, Skills Development Scotland, the responsible Government department and the Scottish funding council. On its website, the SNP says that the Government has created a

“more streamlined service for the Scottish business community”

and yet there is still the mess of four Government quangos and departments passing private industry from post to post. That needs to be sorted.

The First Minister needs to cut that bureaucracy. If he does not, Siemens tells me that the apprentices will be trained in Wales or Yorkshire or it will import the skills from abroad. Fife Council saved the course this year. Will the First Minister ensure ministerial time to bang heads together and get the course guaranteed for the future?

I have three things to say to Tavish Scott. First, I am perfectly happy to look at the case that he puts. I will write to him on that. Secondly, there should be general acknowledgement that the training system in Scotland has been brought together under Skills Development Scotland. That is exactly the process that has happened. Many of the organisations that were previously involved are now encompassed by Skills Development Scotland. Thirdly, I agree that there is more scope for making efficiencies in the delivery of public services in Scotland. That is why we brought forward the Public Services (Scotland) Reform Bill. Doing so allowed us to ensure that two, three or four organisations did not do what one organisation could do; yet, when we brought the bill to the chamber, the sustained opposition came from the Liberal Democrats.

The announcement that Connaught has gone into receivership is a major concern to many of my constituents. One hundred and fifty jobs are on the line, many of which transferred to Connaught from Dumfries and Galloway Council when Dumfries and Galloway Housing Partnership awarded its maintenance contract to Connaught. In addition, Connaught subcontracts to a number of small local businesses, the future of which are now uncertain. Will the First Minister assure me that his Government will do whatever it can to facilitate a solution that safeguards those jobs in Dumfries and Galloway?

Yes, I can, and I do so for not only the constituency member but the range of members across Scotland who have an interest and involvement in the matter. As Elaine Murray knows, Alex Neil is already involved in seeking to do exactly what she suggests. I am sure that Mr Neil will be very happy to report to her and other concerned members.

The First Minister will be aware of the decision by the UK Border Agency to withdraw funding for the police force at the ports on Loch Ryan. Given the open nature of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom frontier is effectively at Stranraer and Cairnryan, so is it right that the devolved Scottish budget should be expected to pay to police the UK border? What does the unilateral nature of the decision that the Home Office took without consultation say about the future of the respect agenda?

Certainly, it places it in some doubt. It seems beyond argument that, as long as responsibility for the UK Border Agency is reserved, the respective London departments are responsible for funding its operations. It is just not acceptable for the UK Border Agency to withdraw police cover and say that the onus could fall on one of the smallest police forces in Scotland. We are making urgent representations on the matter. In so doing, we are supported by the local chief constable. Hopefully, after reflection, the UK Border Agency and the Home Office will recognise that this is not an effective economy to make.

---

Alcohol (Minimum Price)

4. To ask the First Minister what evidence the Scottish Government considered before deciding on a 45 pence per unit minimum price for alcohol. (S3F-2552)

Based on a detailed analysis, we consider that a minimum price of 45p per unit is appropriate. In the first year, we could see 50 fewer deaths, 1,200 fewer hospital admissions, 400 fewer cases of violent crime, 22,900 fewer days’ absence from work, and 1,200 fewer unemployed. The total value of harm reduction for health, crime and employment would be £52 million in the first year and £720 million over 10 years.

It is encouraging that the Opposition parties have finally accepted that pricing intervention has a part to play in reducing consumption and harm. We remain strongly of the view that minimum pricing is the most effective and efficient intervention that we have available.

The Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill must be considered in its entirety. We are imposing a social responsibility levy, which will require retailers to make a bigger contribution to the cost of the public services that are needed to deal with alcohol abuse. In that light, and given the comprehensive nature of the proposed legislation, I hope that the Parliament will carry the minimum price proposal.

The First Minister might be interested in the initial analysis that the Scottish Parliament information centre carried out into the submissions that were received by Labour’s commission on alcohol. Of the 80 respondents, 45 were in favour of minimum pricing, 23 did not express a preference and 12—mostly drinks manufacturers—were against the proposal. Only one of the 80 respondents—a drinks company—put forward Labour’s preferred proposal of restricting alcohol sales below the total cost of production, duty and VAT. Given that Labour’s own alcohol commission failed to find support for its proposal, does the First Minister agree that it is time that Labour stopped playing politics with the health of the nation, accepted the overwhelming evidence in favour of minimum pricing and got behind the Scottish Government’s plan?

I am not surprised that a majority of organisations supported minimum pricing. There is a mood swing in Scotland, with a recognition that minimum pricing would be effective. More and more people in Scotland recognise that we must rebalance this country’s relationship with alcohol, and more and more people are prepared to support courageous decisions to do so.

Why did it take so long for the First Minister to name the price? Is he completely comfortable with the fact that a minimum unit price, now named as 45p, will hand a windfall of £140 million to retailers, but nothing to the Exchequer—and that it is unlikely to produce much for health either?

Richard Simpson spent several years—almost—bemoaning the fact that a minimum price had not come forward, and he presented that as a serious problem with regard to his support for the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill. Now that a minimum price has come forward, he presents other reasons for not supporting the bill. I have given statistics on what a minimum price of 45p would do. The social responsibility levy, to which I referred in answer to Joe FitzPatrick, partly answers the questions that he put.

If the Parliament had power over taxation, we would have other options, but the Labour Party does not support the Parliament’s having control over excise duties. Therefore, it seems an extraordinarily easy position for Richard Simpson to adopt: he would maybe do something if only the Parliament had the power to do it, but he does not support our getting those powers. That seems a rather dubious and ridiculous position for someone of Richard Simpson’s eminence to support.

Notwithstanding Joe FitzPatrick’s claims, does the First Minister not accept that there is no evidence in support of all the extravagant claims for minimum unit pricing, other than the now widely discredited University of Sheffield modelling study that was commissioned by the Scottish Government, which even its own authors accepted in evidence to the Health and Sport Committee had no greater currency, authority or standing than a weather forecast?

Sheffield university has more currency, standing and authority than Murdo Fraser.

Given the need for the minimum price to effect a material change in public health in order to satisfy the requirements of article 36 of the Treaty of Lisbon, can the First Minister explain why his Government appears to have rejected the advice of medical experts, such as Dr Peter Rice of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who considered the appropriate level to be 50p, and the Faculty of Public Health in Scotland, which expressed a preference for 60p?

In the first year, 50 fewer deaths, 1,200 fewer hospital admissions, 400 fewer cases of violent crime, 20,000 fewer days’ absence from work and 1,200 fewer unemployed seems to me a significant improvement in Scotland’s health and welfare. That is the estimate of the benefits of having a minimum price of 45p per unit.

I find the gymnastics of members of the Opposition parties on the matter quite extraordinary: the Labour Party says that pricing has a role to play but it does not support the proposal for minimum unit pricing; the Conservatives say that the University of Sheffield lacks authority; and the Liberal Democrats would apparently now be attracted to support minimum pricing if only we proposed a higher price. Members can think of all sorts of reasons for not supporting the substantive proposal that is before us, but people who are concerned for the health and welfare of Scotland will back the bill and back minimum pricing.

---

Mackerel Stocks

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to address concerns that the total allowable catch quotas for mackerel set by Iceland and the Faroe Islands could impact negatively on Scotland’s fishing communities and destabilise global mackerel stocks. (S3F-2548)

I thank Karen Gillon for asking an important question. The Scottish Government is leading the way in calling for a strong response from Europe to the irresponsible behaviour shown by Iceland and the Faroe Islands.

I took the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Norwegian foreign minister when I met him, as Scotland and Norway are the two fishing communities most immediately affected. We agreed to press the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries to continue to take a strong stand against the action.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment is in regular contact with the commissioner and has been assured that the matter is a top priority for the European Union and is being brought to the forefront of Icelandic accession negotiations. The Scottish Government will continue to press the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission to achieve a multilateral agreement that is fair to Scotland and Norway and protects this vital industry.

This morning, I met fishermen’s representatives. I recognise their concerns about the future of the industry because of the actions of irresponsible small, independent nations, such as Iceland, which the SNP held up as being such a good role model in its 2007 manifesto. Will the First Minister tell us what he personally will do to protect our fishing communities with the powers that we have if the negotiations on 12 October do not bring about the international sustainable agreement that we all seek?

I thanked Karen Gillon for asking the question, but I am not certain that her supplementary indicates a command of fisheries. On Tuesday night, I met fisheries representatives, who publicly thanked the Scottish Government for the efforts that it is making on the issue.

As she asks about small, independent countries, she might find it interesting that one of the most effective methods of pursuing the issue is to secure the support of the Norwegian Government, which is not even in the European Union but, as an independent nation, has substantial clout with the European Commission on the issue. There might be a lesson for her in considering the Norwegian Government’s actions and authority on it.

It goes without saying, peradventure, that we would be better making decisions as part of a council of ministers than being a lobbying organisation, which is what the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are often reduced to under the current constitutional set-up. If Karen Gillon can find anyone within or without the fishing community who does not believe that an independent Government would have more ability to progress the issue, she should produce them, because it is unassailably the case that we would.

---

Ferry Services (Northern Isles)

6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will withdraw the proposal for a £1 million reduction in the northern isles ferry services budget. (S3F-2536)

Liam McArthur has been overtaken by events. Ferry services to the northern isles provide a vital lifeline service to communities across the Orkney and Shetland islands. That is why the Scottish Government has increased the funding to NorthLink by a quarter since May 2007. I am sure that the member will join me and the leaders of Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council in welcoming the announcement by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change that the services will not change this year.

I welcome the U-turn and the lifting of the immediate threat. Does the First Minister acknowledge that this is just the latest in a series of threats to the lifeline ferry services to my constituency? In 2007, his Government removed £1 million from Orkney’s internal ferry budgets, returning it only after sustained pressure. Earlier this year, with absolutely no consultation, ministers decreed that the Aberdeen service to the northern isles would be slowed down to save money. Again, the justification for that was challenged and the Government made a U-turn. Most recently, the threat of a £1 million budget cut that has been hanging over the north isles was lifted only amid the outrage that was caused by the simultaneous decision to spend £6.5 million on extending the cheap ferry fare scheme on the Western Isles routes for a further 12 months.

While each U-turn is welcome, does not the First Minister recognise the damage that is caused by such needless confusion and uncertainty? Will he now confirm that there will be no cut in the north isles lifeline ferry service before the current contract ends in 2012?

I will give Liam McArthur two figures. In 2007-08, in the last budget that was set by the Administration of which he was a supporter, Scottish Government subsidies to NorthLink were £29.2 million. In the current year, they are forecast to be £35.6 million. That is an extraordinary and substantial increase of more than 20 per cent during that period of time.

I mention that to Liam McArthur because it is an extremely positive illustration of the Government’s commitment to the northern islands. How does Liam McArthur think that our transport budgets for ferries and everything else across Scotland will fare if his colleague Mr Danny Alexander goes ahead with the cuts projected of up to 25 per cent in the budget set out by transport for England over a four-year period? It might be argued that the 20 per cent increase in funding during the past four years shows this Government’s commitment. I suggest that Liam McArthur has a word with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to ensure that we can continue to sustain such a commitment not just to the northern isles but right across the country.

12:32 Meeting suspended until 14:15.

14:15 On resuming—