Plenary, 12 Nov 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, November 12, 2009

Official Report 664KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2000)

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

Can the First Minister tell us how much his independence referendum will cost?

That will be laid out in the bill that is introduced in the Parliament. I hope that the Labour Party will revert to its position of approximately this time last year—Iain Gray reversed it, having previously supported it—of allowing the Scottish people to exercise their democratic right to decide on their constitutional future, as opposed to the Labour and Conservative parties attempting to carve it up for them. [Interruption.]

The referendum is meant to be the First Minister's flagship policy, but he cannot tell us how much it will cost. The figure, of course, is around £9 million—the Scottish National Party gave the game away earlier this week. For that kind of money, Scotland could have 300 more teachers or 600 more nursery nurses, or two new primary schools. I know what most Scots would rather have.

While we are at it, how much is the First Minister spending on his national conversation?

I am interested that Iain Gray mentioned a figure of 300 teachers. I have here a document from Glasgow City Council, which shows the council cutting, up to September, 308 teaching posts in the city. I have sympathy for local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland that are struggling with the recession and public spending, as the Government is. The difficulty is that Glasgow City Council does not believe in lower class sizes, so when Iain Gray—

First Minister, the question was about the cost of the national conversation. I think that you should address that.

And the example given was 300 teachers, which is what I am talking about.

The national conversation's cost is equivalent to that of the carve-up between the Labour and Conservative parties in the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution. When I mentioned that carve-up earlier, there was some interest among members as to why I did not include the Liberal Democrats. That is because, although the Liberal Democrats were part of the carve-up in the Calman commission, which cost the same as the national conversation, I hope that in future they at least will revert to the idea that the people of Scotland should be allowed to exercise their democratic right to decide—on behalf of the people and not on behalf of the unionist political parties.

As usual, the First Minister has the Colgate ring of confidence but no answer to the question.

In 2007, Nicola Sturgeon said that the national conversation would cost £48,000 and that the rest of the costs would be met from existing resources. I have with me official figures, which add up to £1.8 million. That includes the cost of 13 dedicated staff for the national conversation. A sum of £1.8 million could pay for 58 nurses or a community court to fight crime in Glasgow. It could employ 40 new dentists, with enough change left to be able to have them all round to Bute house to celebrate with a slap-up feed.

What about the St Andrew's day party? How much will the First Minister spend on that?

I am delighted to confirm that, thanks to this SNP Administration, there are more dentists working in Scotland than there were under the Labour Party.

I know that, under the Labour Party, the only people who got invited to Bute house were other politicians—predominantly Labour politicians. I do not know whether Iain Gray knows how internal and tedious conversation can be when it takes place only among politicians—I know, because I have to listen to him every Thursday. Sometimes we should let the ordinary people in. That applies to Bute house and it applies to Downing Street. If it came to the choice of inviting a dentist or Margaret Thatcher to Bute house, I would take the dentist any day of the week.

I remind all members that personal insults should form no part of questions or answers.

I will provide the answer to my question, as the First Minister does not know it or does not want to share it. The St Andrew's day party will involve £500,000 of fireworks to celebrate an independence white paper that will—frankly—be the biggest damp squib since the joke that he tried to crack a minute ago.

Hard-working Scottish families are worried about their jobs and the roof over their heads. Meanwhile, the First Minister spends nearly £12 million of their money on someone to talk to at dinner, a conversation with himself and a referendum to which we already know the answer.

Oh.

Order.

That is £12 million of Alex Salmond's vanity. Enough is enough—cancel the conversation, cancel the white paper and cancel the rigged referendum. For Scotland's sake, will he do that right now?

Iain Gray knows the answer to a referendum before it takes place. I remind him that the Prime Minister committed himself at the Labour conference to a referendum on the alternative voting system, which no political party appears to support. If we can have a referendum on the AV system from the Labour Party, why cannot we have a referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland?

I remind Iain Gray that the St Andrew's day celebrations were inaugurated by my predecessor, Mr Jack McConnell. Of course, that was in the days when the Labour Party was under patriotic leadership, as opposed to that of Iain Gray, who purports to know the answer to a referendum before it has taken place.

I have a passing suspicion about the attitude of the Labour and Conservative parties to a referendum. They are against it not because of confidence in the union—how could they be confident in a union that has visited public spending cuts and a recession on the Scottish people? Their caution about a referendum is based on a lack of confidence in the Scottish people. The parties do not believe that their answer will be supported. They are frightened of the people's verdict—hence Iain Gray's reluctance about and opposition to the democratic verdict of a referendum.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2001)

I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.

I will remind the First Minister of what some leading Scottish educationists said recently. In September, Professor Lindsay Paterson of the University of Edinburgh said:

"In mathematics, science and reading, Scotland is mediocre by international standards ... the situation is dismal."

Yesterday, Professor Eric Wilkinson of the University of Glasgow said:

"In Scotland, we are ... stuck in a mud pool ... Scottish education is on a downward spiral".

Just this week, East Lothian Council's leader, David Berry, of the Scottish National Party—for the moment—proposed a radical departure from the traditional system of providing education. Does the First Minister accept the urgent need for a debate on how we provide education, or is his mind closed to those very public concerns?

I am all for debate on the future of Scottish education and any other important matter, but I will not accept the running down of an education system—as the Conservatives do continuously—that has delivered record attainment levels and results in exam after exam in recent years. I do not mind the Conservative party running down the SNP and the Government—that is its job as the second Opposition party—but it should beware of running down the attainment of pupils and teachers throughout the Scottish education system.

The proposals in East Lothian represent an interesting public consultation exercise. Why on earth should we be frightened of public consultation or of debate? However, we should undertake that from a position of strength in which we know that there is a huge amount to be valued in the Scottish education system and not run down as the Tories would like.

The First Minister may want to sit in his bunker and ignore those who know what they are talking about, but one would have thought that a significant and interesting proposal from someone senior in his own party, such as David Berry, would at least have merited a response from the education minister, the hapless Fiona Hyslop. What did we get? On Monday, there was nothing; on Tuesday, there was nothing; on Wednesday, there was nothing; and today, there has been nothing.

There we have the Scottish Government's contribution to the educational debate. One minister is too busy taking his dentist out to dinner to bother and the other is rendered mute. The conspiracy of indifference from the Government is unacceptable. Alex Salmond must grip the issue. If Fiona Hyslop cannot lead the vital and overdue debate on Scottish education, will he find someone who can?

As Annabel Goldie did not want to address the issue, let us nail the attack from the Tories that, somehow, Scottish education is failing pupils and parents throughout Scotland. The pass rate for highers in 2009 was 74.2 per cent, which was a new record. The pass rate for advanced highers in 2009 was 77.8 per cent—another new record. I repeat that there is a huge amount to be valued in the performance of teachers, pupils and parents throughout Scotland. Annabel Goldie and her party do themselves no credit at all by running down that performance; it is to be highly valued.

East Lothian Council is exploring a proposal to bring primary and secondary schools together in clusters under a community-led board. The proposal is at an early stage but represents an interesting suggestion on the way to improve community empowerment. That seems to me to be an entirely sensible attitude to take to the East Lothian initiative. I know that it is an entirely sensible attitude because it was given to me by Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.

Will Annabel Goldie accept that Scottish education is doing extremely well in servicing the needs of pupils throughout the country and that the Government's mind is open to local suggestions? A central diktat, as suggested by Annabel Goldie, seems to go in a negative, rather than positive, direction.

We must move on.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2002)

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

The chairmen of England's biggest football clubs are meeting now to consider whether Rangers Football Club and Celtic Football Club should become part of the most successful league in Europe. Are there not advantages for the Scottish game in the old firm playing in the bigger leagues? Does the proposal not have the potential to bring about greater competitiveness and more interest and to encourage more youngsters into the game in Scotland? Does the First Minister support it?

Tavish Scott has the opportunity once a week to question me for things for which I am directly responsible. I enjoy our weekly exchanges but, for all the things for which I am responsible, I ain't responsible for the decisions of the old firm or for running Scottish football. I know that many people throughout the country say, "Bring in Salmond to run Scottish football," but, as First Minister, I will concentrate on our nation's constitutional and economic future. I know that, at some point, I will have Tavish Scott's support and endorsement for our proposals in that regard.

I am glad that the First Minister raised the economy because—[Laughter.] I think that the question is important and do not mind how much other people do not think that. When Rangers or Celtic has a champions league game in Glasgow, it is worth £8 million to the city's economy. The Tories may want to laugh about that, but I will not because I think it important. If the old firm joined a new English league set-up, it would mean a massive game in Glasgow every week. The number of visiting fans and the amount of television and media interest in Scotland would increase. A new league structure in Britain would mean £20 million in TV rights money for the old firm. Managers from Arsenal's Arsène Wenger to Tottenham Hotspur's Harry Redknapp—to say nothing of Alex McLeish, Gordon Strachan and Martin O'Neill—all say that it would be good for football north and south of the border. Is the First Minister's Minister for Public Health and Sport involved in the potential to bring football back to life in Scotland while helping our biggest clubs to develop?

The Minister for Public Health and Sport is involved with the Scottish Football Association and other authorities in initiatives to spread coaching and football experience to young people across Scotland. Those are good and highly commendable initiatives that will prepare the ground for a succession and flow of good players in Scotland as well as increase the life and health chances of children in our community. Surprisingly enough, the Minister for Public Health and Sport, like the First Minister, is not involved in running either the old firm or Scottish Football.

In all conscience, I have to say to Tavish Scott that I know that Scottish football brought in Henry McLeish to take a view on matters, but he is a past First Minister. It is not normal—I do not think that it is a good idea—for the First Minister of Scotland, or even the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, to try to run Scottish football. I think that we should leave that to the people who are in charge, let them get on with the job and trust in their wise decisions for the future.

I will take a constituency question from Richard Baker.

Is the First Minister aware that more than 1,500 people have signed a petition by the Community trade union to save the Glencraft factory following Aberdeen City Council's decision to cease its funding? When he met Glencraft's blind and disabled workforce this week, what proposals did he discuss to give the factory a future and so retain funding from the United Kingdom workstep programme for disabled people, which otherwise will be lost? Does he agree that article 19 of the European Union procurement directive should be used throughout the public sector to procure from supported workplaces?

I had very good discussions at Glencraft on Tuesday with the unions, the management of Glencraft, Aberdeen City Council and officials from the third sector. A range of things is being examined to take matters forward, as everybody, not just in the north-east of Scotland but throughout Scotland, would like Glencraft to continue in some form and, in particular, would like the people with disability who work at Glencraft to have good life chances.

The financial situation in Glencraft is extremely serious. It emerged at the meeting that the monthly deficit is currently running at £70,000, which is far in excess of the workstep grant that Richard Baker mentioned. In fact, that figure takes the workstep grant into account. Nonetheless, there have been substantial offers of help and support from third sector agencies and, indeed, from some private sector companies. Plans are being worked on that I hope and believe will lead to good outcomes for the workers of Glencraft. In this—and I appreciate the way in which Richard Baker asked his question, which was the right way to do it—I hope that everybody keeps focused on what we can do for the workers in the factory. People are now working hard and the various agencies that are involved are pulling together, perhaps for the first time in many months. I hope to see good outcomes for the workers, who will be uppermost in all our minds.

If I may, I will return to the question raised by Tavish Scott. Glory, glory to the Hibees, I could say from a partisan point of view, but I urge the First Minister not to take so lightly the position of Scottish football in our economy and our identity, because it is part of the Scottish promotion of what we are. Tomorrow, a member of the Scottish Premier League and a senior official from one of the Scottish clubs are coming here to meet me because they—

Can we have a question, please, Ms MacDonald?

Yes.

Quickly, please.

I am looking for the First Minister to wish the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on sport well in its efforts to provide a forum for this discussion.

Of course I wish the cross-party group well. Indeed, I had discussions with Henry McLeish on his review of Scottish football.

Really? Henry?

Why on earth not? Is Henry McLeish not somebody who should be invited into Bute house for discussions? [Interruption.]

Order, Mr Rumbles.

I thoroughly agree with having such discussions. I will even, if Mike Rumbles asks me very nicely, invite him into Bute house for discussions.

No!

Order.

Or maybe I should put that to a democratic vote in a referendum.

I wish the cross-party group well and I wish Henry McLeish well in his study of Scottish football. The Minister for Public Health and Sport is, of course, actively engaged in promoting the game at grass-roots level. I can exclusively reveal to Margo MacDonald that I made a highly successful speech at Easter Road just a few weeks ago, after which I received the applause that has always been accorded to me by Hibernian Football Club.

---

Rail Services (Scotland to London)

To ask the First Minister what impact the Scottish Government considers that the return of the east coast mainline rail service to public ownership will have on services between Scotland and London. (S3F-2007)

The east coast mainline rail service provides a vital link between Scotland and London. I am extremely concerned about the proposals to remove many of the direct services between Glasgow Central and London King's Cross. That service provides 25,000 seats a week to London and is a vital economic link for the city of Glasgow.

I am very concerned that Labour's plan to cut Glasgow's rail link to the east coast main line will further disadvantage Scotland. Does the First Minister agree that the energies of Labour politicians should be focused on persuading their London colleagues to stop cutting services to Scotland?

There seems to be a strange contrast in the Labour Party position on the matter. I would have said that preserving and protecting existing vital services should be a concern for every party in this Parliament. Political parties and individual members should be very careful not to pick and choose which services they intend to promote or stress. I thought it extraordinary that the London transport minister spent a couple of days in Scotland lecturing the Scottish Government on matters but forgot to explain that his department was set to axe an important existing service to Glasgow. I think that people see through such double standards very quickly.

Is the First Minister aware that the east coast mainline service from Glasgow regularly stops at Motherwell station, which provides a vital service for those who wish to travel to London from outwith Scotland's two main cities? Will he support me in making representations to ensure that the Motherwell stop continues on that service? Will he join me in expressing support for any moves by North Lanarkshire Council and Strathclyde partnership for transport to develop Motherwell station in a way that ensures more users of the service in future?

I am delighted to support the former First Minister in his call. I agree with him about the importance to Motherwell—and, indeed, to other stations—of that vital link. I find myself at one again with Jack McConnell, as I was on the important subject of properly celebrating St Andrew's day as our national day.

The First Minister will be aware that, as part of the east coast main line service, National Express provided three trains a day in each direction between Aberdeen and London and one train a day between Inverness and London. Those direct links are vital. I seek reassurance from the First Minister that the Scottish Government has made, and will continue to make, representations to Westminster and to the newly established east coast rail company to ensure that those valuable services are protected from the kind of threat that Glasgow seems to be under now.

A consensus seems to be breaking out across the chamber that these services are important. Our representations will be strengthened by the fact that they carry all-party support.

Huge investments are taking place in the rail network within Scotland. Dramatic improvements are being made to services not just between Edinburgh and Glasgow but between Aberdeen and Inverness and the central belt. Substantial reductions are being achieved in journey times and substantial enhancements are being made to services. The very last thing that we want while those proposals, measures and investments are being introduced to improve Scotland's internal rail network is to lose vital interconnectivity with London and other stations on the east coast and other lines.

I hope that the whole Parliament will rally behind the representations that are being made. I am sure that such consensus support will make it all the more difficult to ignore the important economic grounding of the subject of the member's question.

The First Minister will be aware of the campaign to reopen stations on the east coast main line to bring services to Berwickshire in my constituency. Does he agree that the change of ownership of east coast mainline rail services gives us an opportunity to renew that campaign? Will he commit the Scottish Government's full support to ensure that that part of Scotland once again has rail services?

I know that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has had dialogue with the member and we will certainly continue that dialogue. Of course we will look for any opportunities, as well as trying to turn back any dangers, in the proposals coming forward.

---

Forth Road Bridge

To ask the First Minister how long the Forth road bridge will continue to operate safely at full capacity. (S3F-2005)

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority has indicated that, at the present rate of deterioration, restrictions on heavy good vehicles are likely to be required some time between 2017 and 2021. That could happen earlier under some scenarios, but that is the likely timescale.

The Forth road bridge forms a critical part of our transport infrastructure and its closure without a replacement would have a devastating impact on the Scottish economy as a whole. As the member will be aware, the Scottish Government will introduce the Forth crossing bill to the Scottish Parliament very soon. I am sure that the member will take the opportunity to welcome that.

If the current repair programme on the Forth bridge achieves its best case scenario, what implications might that have for the Scottish Government's transport capital programme in future spending review periods?

When we are contemplating, as the Parliament is about to, an investment of £1.7 billion in a vital transport link, it is important that we should be able to spread capital investment over a period of time—in other words, the Parliament should have borrowing powers to enable us to sensibly manage a capital programme. We are hopeful that, with the changes that I think must take place in the Parliament's capacity to do that, the borrowing powers will make the Forth crossing manageable in terms of the capital programme. I know that Charlie Gordon will be aware of—and supportive of—the obvious point that, for major, once-in-a-generation capital projects such as the Forth crossing, borrowing powers are essential for the proper management of the capital programme.

I am sure that the First Minister is aware of a recent poll showing that 57 per cent of Scots would prefer the repair of the existing bridge to be prioritised rather than the construction of an additional bridge. Does he accept that there is widespread concern that other transport projects across Scotland simply will not happen if we commit to this single capital project at this time? This is a time when we should be investing in the low-carbon transport infrastructure of the future. Should we not wait until we have fully informed answers on the future of the existing bridge before we make that decision?

We have substantial information on the state of the existing bridge. As I outlined in the answer to Mr Gordon's question, we know what the consequences will be if we do not take alternative action. It is sometimes not appreciated that even the closure of the bridge to effect the repairs would introduce substantial economic penalties across Scotland, never mind the estimates about future capacity.

I know that Patrick Harvie has strongly held views. I hope that he will at least be able to support the argument for borrowing powers for the Parliament, which would apply to any major capital project—any that he approves of as well as any that he disapproves of. I know that he will take full advantage of opportunities to make his views known as the bill comes before the Parliament.

---

Graduate Employment

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to support graduates unable to find employment, in light of reports that tens of thousands of new graduates are in this position. (S3F-2012)

Through the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, we are providing £3.5 million to fund skills and employability initiatives focused on work-related learning and placements; enterprise and entrepreneurship; and workforce development.

In addition to university-funded careers services, the Scottish funding council is also providing £27,000 to fund careers advice and job hunting services for final-year students and unemployed graduates.

The latest figures in the labour force survey suggest that graduate employment is proving more resilient in Scotland than elsewhere. For the year to June, our graduate employment rate is higher, at 86.5 per cent, than the corresponding rate in England and Northern Ireland. Although the Scottish figures show a drop in employment of 0.7 per cent, that is half the English fall of 1.5 per cent and one third of the Northern Irish fall of 2.1 per cent.

Does the First Minister know that unemployment as a whole is, regrettably, growing at a faster rate in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom? The last full-year figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that the number of graduates who are assumed to be economically inactive has gone up in Scotland but down in the rest of the UK.

In May, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning answered a parliamentary question by saying that the Scottish Government had no plans to establish a specific graduate talent pool for graduate employment support similar to that which the UK Government has set up and to GO Wales, which the Welsh Assembly Government has set up. Instead, she said:

"we are monitoring closely the situation on graduate employment."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 14 May 2009; S3W-23555.]

Six months on, what has been the result of that monitoring?

In my answer to the member's first question, I gave information about both the initiatives that the Scottish funding council is involved with.

I take issue with the first part of Jeremy Purvis's supplementary question. I do not think for a minute that we can argue that the fact that the situation is worse elsewhere means that it is good in Scotland; any rise in graduate unemployment and in unemployment generally is deeply regrettable and a source of great concern. However, the fact is that the Higher Education Statistics Agency statistics that were published in July 2009—I think that they are the figures to which he refers—show that Scotland has the best record in the UK for graduate unemployment. Five per cent of leavers from Scottish universities in 2007-08 were unemployed six months later, in January this year. In England, the figure was 6.6 per cent; in Wales, it was 6.5 per cent; and in Northern Ireland, it was 6.3 per cent. All those figures are serious, but if Jeremy Purvis cites initiatives that have been taken elsewhere, he should at least accept that the situation elsewhere is even worse than the situation in Scotland, and applaud the initiatives that the Scottish funding council is taking to deal with the situation.

I am sure that the First Minister agrees that graduates are a vital part of our economy. Has he given any thought to referring the issue to the Council of Economic Advisers for consideration?

Yes, I have now, and yes, I will.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When I saw the Business Bulletin this morning I was concerned that the Parliament might be likely to be misled by question 4 to the First Minister. I phoned the office of the Secretary of State for Transport, and he confirmed his statement to The Herald earlier this week that public ownership of the east coast main line will make no difference to timetabling decisions, that no proposals for change in the timetable have been put to him and that he makes the final decision. Can you advise me how I can make that correction available to all MSPs and to the media?

You have just done so by putting it on the record, but it is certainly not a point of order.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Questions 5 and 6 were excellent questions, but they were asked by people who represent their parties in those particular portfolios. I would like to know what the convention is with regard to who gets to ask questions of front-bench members, as I thought that it was the back benchers.

Any member is entitled to ask a question, and I am entitled to select any of the questions to be asked, which is what I did.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—