Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02376)
I am told that this is my 215th session of First Minister’s question time. Later today, I will be proud to meet a group of young carers who have designed the young carers tartan, which I am proudly wearing. They have experience in care and have designed the tartan with Black Cherry Studio, which is a Scottish print design company. The design has been registered with the Scottish register of tartans and is available to anyone who has been in care. It is hoped that that will encourage more people with experience of care to claim their identity positively. I am proud to wear that tartan today.
Today is, of course, Alex Salmond’s last appearance at First Minister’s question time. His time as Scotland’s longest-serving First Minister will be properly acknowledged next Tuesday. In the meantime, I invite him just once to astound us all and actually answer a question—but briefly. Can I ask the First Minister, if he could describe himself in just one word, what would that be?
No. [Laughter.]
One word seems hardly adequate for that task, although I say to Fergus Ewing that his words might have been better addressed to the coming First Minister rather than the departing one.
As ever, the First Minister is in denial. I asked for one word, but I got a whole dictionary full.
There are many words that I could have used to describe the First Minister, such as “humble”, “sensitive”, “modest”, “meek” or perhaps even “bashful”.
It is interesting that the First Minister did not use the word “proud”. If I were him, I would not be entirely proud of the Government’s record, either. Teacher numbers, college places and national health service bed numbers are down, and waiting lists are up. [Interruption.]
Order.
This week, the First Minister has been giving advice to Nicola Sturgeon about who should be in her Cabinet. He knows that I always like to be helpful, so let me offer suggestions on perhaps who to keep out. How about Mike Russell for failing Scotland’s young people, Alex Neil for failing Scotland’s patients, or perhaps even Kenny MacAskill, who has been relegated today to the second row, for the many failings that appear on his charge sheet? Given their record of failure, which members of the First Minister’s Cabinet would he recommend should keep their jobs when his deputy takes over?
If there is a mood to miss, Jackie Baillie has an unerring ability to miss it.
I have been doing some research on these matters. Over the years, the Labour Party has called for the resignation of each and every one of my cabinet secretaries. The only person it has not called on to resign is me—and I am the one who is resigning. Does that not represent the Labour Party’s unerring ability to miss the target on each and every occasion?
First Minister, I think that I have captured the mood—you are going anyway.
The First Minister usually heaps such praise on his ministers. Clearly, they are in exceptionally good company. That admiration is usually reserved for Vladimir Putin or Rupert Murdoch.
The First Minister says that he is resigning because he lost the referendum campaign and believes that somebody has to take responsibility for that defeat. The referendum was his life’s ambition. He spent millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on the referendum. He put Scotland on pause and, despite a derided United Kingdom coalition, he still lost by 400,000 votes.
The First Minister is going and the person who actually ran the yes campaign, Nicola Sturgeon, gets the keys to Bute house. However, Nicola Sturgeon’s record in government is not too clever, either. Child poverty and fuel poverty are growing, and house building is at its lowest level since the second world war.
We are told that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are joined at the hip. Is it not therefore the case that changing the First Minister will make very little difference?
I do not think that talking about changing leaders is the Labour Party’s strongest suit. Jackie Baillie is actually the 10th leader or caretaker leader I have faced over the dispatch box, and all of them have had the grace and charity with which she addresses the chamber. Nicola Sturgeon should be assured that, on the track record, once she becomes First Minister, the Labour Party will not ask for her resignation, because it only asks for the resignation of the Deputy First Minister and other cabinet secretaries.
The Administration has a substantial record of achievement over the past seven years. However, in many ways, it does not matter what I think about it—surely the issue is what the people of Scotland think about it. I remind Jackie Baillie that the Government was re-elected with an overall majority in a proportional Parliament. If we believe the more recent indications, that support seems to be growing, not diminishing. All in all, I think that I would rather stand here as First Minister, albeit departing, than as the 10th leader or caretaker leader who has faced me over the dispatch box.
I noticed the praise that the First Minister heaped on the Deputy First Minister, although perhaps he meant to do so only
“in terms of the debate”,
which might be a useful title for his autobiography.
I say genuinely that today marks the end of an era. No one can deny Alex Salmond’s passion for Scotland or his love of his country, but the tragedy is that he was so blinkered by his passion for independence that the powers that he already had to tackle poverty, reduce inequality and deliver social justice were pushed into second place. For the past seven years, the First Minister has used his age-old excuse that, somehow, it was Westminster’s fault. However, we hear that he wants to go back there and that he even believes that he could be the Deputy Prime Minister. He has gone from urging Scots to vote for Nick Clegg to wanting to be Nick Clegg.
Is it not the case that the First Minister’s real legacy is leaving Scotland more divided than ever? Before he answers, I know from his first response that brevity is not his strong point, so let me offer one final word to the First Minister: cheerio!
How can I break the mood? I say to Jackie Baillie that whoever stands for the Scottish National Party in the Westminster Parliament would seem, according to the present polls, to have a reasonable chance of success.
There have been substantial achievements, and I will name but two. The reintroduction of free education in Scotland strikes me as one. Looking forward, there is the introduction of free school meals in primary 1 to 3, again in the teeth of Labour opposition. I think that that is a substantial move forward in Scottish society.
Despite all the leaders I have faced from the Labour Party, there is a continuing failure of that party to address the decline or collapse in its fortunes. I will add a final piece of advice to Jackie Baillie, which she can translate to her leader, whoever it may be. People in Scotland no longer know what the Labour Party stands for, but they know who it stood with in the referendum campaign. Any political party that is in alliance with the Tory party is destined for destruction in Scotland, and that is exactly what is happening to the branch office that is before us now.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02375)
I have no current plans, and I would have to be reasonably quick if I was going to do so.
I am sure that the First Minister will join me in welcoming the good news yesterday that showed that employment is up and unemployment is down and that earnings are outstripping inflation. That is a credit to both of Scotland’s Governments.
It would, of course, be churlish of politicians not to recognise success. However, it is more damaging not to recognise where work needs to be done. In Scotland, our levels of educational attainment are stagnating; there is no improvement in reducing reconviction rates among offenders; the gap in research and development funding between Scotland and other European Union nations is as big as ever; and people’s satisfaction with their public services is worsening.
The First Minister has once again today recited polls as a measure of success, but do those facts not show up a record that falls well short of his claims?
There have been substantial achievements in education and health, which are key public services. People’s respect for the health service is increasing. It is a fantastic testament to our health service, our doctors, our nurses and other staff throughout the service that, in these times of austerity, they have achieved that. Of course, educational attainment in Scotland is rising, not falling, and the successful introduction of the curriculum for excellence gives us great hope for the future.
I should correct my earlier answer, because I intend to send another letter to the Prime Minister today, asking him exactly to explain the remarks of the head of the navy, Admiral Zambellas, who seemed to cast doubt on whether the contracts for the global combat ships will be awarded to the Clyde yards. I am sure that Ruth Davidson will join me in saying that those remarks were deeply troubling. They come not from some functionary in the Ministry of Defence but from the head of the navy, and this Parliament will demand that the commitments and promises that have been made to the Clyde workers are honoured.
The First Minister well knows that admirals do not award contracts; the MOD does.
It is interesting that the First Minister challenged the facts that I provided to him on all of those areas of policy, because I was reading from his own Government’s assessment of his own Government’s performance, as contained in the Scottish Government report card called “Scotland Performs” that I took off his own Government’s website this morning. It says that it provides
“an ‘at a glance’ snapshot of how Scotland and the Government are doing.”
In a section entitled, “Performance at a Glance”, there are 11 key targets that the Scottish National Party Government has rightly set itself and with which it measures its progress. Only two show any performance improvement whatsoever. On the other hand, performance is worsening with regard to raising economic growth to the United Kingdom level; matching the gross domestic product growth rate of small EU countries; productivity; and healthy life expectancy.
Those are the measures that the First Minister set in order to judge the performance of his devolved Administration, and he has failed. For seven years, he has stood there and said, “Only with the powers of independence.” However, the people of Scotland looked at that plan, too, and they said that his performance was not up to much, either.
One last time, therefore, I ask the First Minister: is that really a record that is worthy of so much self-satisfaction?
I point out that the Scotland performs website shows that there have been substantial rises in the vast majority of the indices since 2007.
I want to pick up on one point of detail. I was surprised by the comparator between UK and Scottish growth, because Scotland had a shallower recession and a faster recovery. I found out that the figures were surprising not because Scotland has fallen behind the UK but because the UK has revised its statistics.
In his keenness and anxiety to revise the UK statistics—the Scottish ones have not yet been revised—George Osborne included the black economy, which involves a range of matters that it would not be delicate to go into in this Parliament. He also included charitable work, which, given the Tories’ treatment of the third sector, I thought was a bit rich.
As a result of that, George Osborne managed to inflate the UK growth figures—and what happened? To the Government’s surprise, the UK was landed with a £1.7 billion bill by the European Union—not because the economy had improved but because the Government had instructed the officials and statisticians to change the statistics.
It is not surprising to any of us that the Tory party defends its record by including the black economy in the figures. That is what it has been doing for a generation.
Let me say something in true generosity of spirit to Ruth Davidson. I know that she has not, as yet at least, managed to revive the fortunes of the Scottish Conservative Party. I thought that the 8 per cent in last week’s opinion polls was a particularly unlikely figure, but the Conservatives certainly seem to be heading in the direction of single figures. However, she has had a single, almost monumental, political triumph: she has destroyed the fortunes of the other Opposition parties in this Parliament. She destroyed the fortunes of the Liberal party by going into coalition with it at Westminster. She destroyed the fortunes of the Labour Party through the better together alliance. In that respect, using the criteria of destroying other Opposition political parties, Ruth Davidson is undoubtedly the most brilliant political leader in the history of the Scottish Parliament.
I call Willie Rennie.
Presiding Officer, thank you for the opportunity to say a few short words. I join other people inside and outside Parliament in paying tribute to the personal achievement of the First Minister. We will get a fuller opportunity next week to elaborate on that.
It has been a long journey since the days of 2004 when Alex Salmond rejected standing for his party’s leadership, saying:
“If nominated I’ll decline. If drafted I’ll defer. And if elected I’ll resign”.
Presiding Officer, can I just check that he is definitely going?
I was quoting the wrong American general. I mean to quote General MacArthur when he said “I shall return”. I got my generals mixed up. [Interruption.] Nicola Sturgeon wants to know what the answer to Mr Rennie’s question is. That is the first time that I have been heckled by the SNP demanding answers.
I welcome Willie Rennie back to his place in the Parliament and thank him for his kind remarks. One of the first things that I found in Bute house—in a cupboard—was a silver tray that had been presented to the Rt Hon John Scott Maclay on the inauguration of the Forth road bridge in 1958. I did some research. John Scott Maclay was not a Conservative; he was the last of the National Liberals and had been appointed by Harold Macmillan to that position. I am told by senior civil servants that he used to go about St Andrew’s house saying, “I have made a decision. I shall now go and consult the Conservative Party.”
There is—is there not?—a moral tale in the Rt Hon John Scott Maclay, a National Liberal, being in alliance with the Conservative Party. He was the last of his kind.
What potential impact on jobs at the Scotstoun yard in my constituency of Glasgow Anniesland could the Ministry of Defence’s considerations on building the type 26 frigates in France have?
Ruth Davidson is overrelaxed about that matter. We are not talking about some mid-ranking official; we are talking about the First Sea Lord, and what he said had cast doubt on where the order would be placed and the country it would be placed in. That is exactly what the First Sea Lord had to say.
If the order were not placed, it would have an impact on thousands of jobs, but I think—and I hope that the Parliament can unite on this—it would be a total, absolute and complete betrayal. We cannot shrug these things off and say that it does not matter what the First Sea Lord says. The First Sea Lord is presumably in a good position to know the state of the contract negotiations. That is why this Parliament, with a resonant voice, should say that it would be totally unacceptable for those orders not to come to the Clyde yards.
Serco’s latest profit warning this week in confirmation that it is writing down £1.5 billion in losses on various public contracts comes as a result of what its chief executive suggested were two strategic mis-steps: diversifying away from core business; and focusing too much on winning new business. One example of both is the contract awarded to Serco by the Scottish ministers in 2012 to provide ferry services to the Northern Isles.
Given this week’s revelations, what reassurance can the First Minister offer my constituents that there will be no knock-on impact on Serco’s ability to continue delivering lifeline ferry services to the communities that Tavish Scott and I represent? Will the Scottish Government review the way that the contract was tendered to ensure that each bid was considered appropriately and that each bidder was offering something that they could deliver?
The reassurance is this: Serco will be held absolutely to the terms of the contract. I am sure that my successor and, indeed, the transport minister will be able to reassure the local member that that will absolutely be the case. Serco is of course under new leadership, but nonetheless it will be held to the contract and that will be enforced.
European Council (Fisheries Negotiations)
To ask the First Minister what response he has received from the Prime Minister to his recent correspondence regarding European Council fisheries negotiations. (S4F-02378)
I have had a totally unsatisfactory response from the Prime Minister. At Monday’s agriculture and fisheries council meeting, the main issue of fisheries policy under discussion was the deep-sea stock regulation. Scotland has a dominant interest in that activity; landings of the species concerned by vessels that are members of Scottish producer organisations represent in the region of 95 per cent of all United Kingdom landings this year.
In my view, which is supported by the Labour Party on this occasion, it was absurd that the Prime Minister put the interests of this vital Scottish industry in the hands of an unelected peer—Lord Rupert Ponsonby, the seventh Baron de Mauley. The key thing about Baron de Mauley is that he has no interest or experience whatsoever in fisheries. The fact that that breaks a clear commitment given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in 2010 is totally unacceptable but, in the light of the Conservative Party’s attitude to wider issues in Scotland, perhaps not totally surprising.
Does the First Minister agree that if we are a “family of nations”, as David Cameron has described the UK, it is only right that the UK Government should respect the devolution settlement as it affects foreign policy, particularly on issues of such importance to Scotland as fisheries, in the same way as states such as Belgium have done for some time?
Yes, I do. That is exactly the point that was raised at the joint ministerial committee on Europe back in 2010. As the Europe minister, Fiona Hyslop attended that meeting, so she can verify everything that I have to say. When the position was explained with regard to how few times Scottish ministers were able to represent key Scottish interests in arguing for a UK position in the fishing negotiations, the then incoming Prime Minister said that he would put that right; he said that he could see the strongest argument for that happening on key issues. However, it has happened once over the past four years, although Richard Lochhead has attended each and every fisheries council and is by far the most experienced fisheries minister in the European continent, never mind in these islands.
It is totally unacceptable that a commitment that was so blithely given in 2010 should not be adhered to in a vital negotiation in 2014. As I said, there might be a lesson for Scotland in wider matters that, unless the Prime Minister’s feet are held to the fire, commitments will not be redeemed.
Health and Safety Legislation (Devolution)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that the devolution of health and safety legislation would lead to more prosecutions where serious injury or death has occurred. (S4F-02379)
The Parliament would be wise to pay close attention to the words of Grahame Smith, the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, who said:
“We believe that this is due to lack of proactive inspections, a policy forced on the HSE by a Government who refuse to acknowledge the need of the HSE to be autonomous”.
Those comments are significant, as is the STUC submission to the Smith commission.
As the First Minister knows, Scotland has more workplace fatalities proportionally than the rest of the United Kingdom, because of the numbers that we have employed in high-risk sectors such as construction, fishing and agriculture. Does he agree that the 35 per cent cut in the Health and Safety Executive budget that the UK coalition Government has made has directly impacted not only on the number of prosecutions, 98 per cent of which are successful, but on the delivery of justice for the victims of workplace accidents and their families?
It cannot be a coincidence that the cuts to the Health and Safety Executive budget have coincided with a dramatic fall in the number of prosecutions. That was one of the key arguments that the STUC put forward when arguing that the devolution of responsibility for health and safety would allow us to have a system that protects workers wherever they work but does not constrain businesses through undue regulation. That is a highly serious matter, which Kenneth Gibson is right to raise in the chamber.
Legal Assistance
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Law Society of Scotland’s discussion paper, “Legal Assistance in Scotland”, which says that the current system is not fit for purpose. (S4F-02386)
The Scottish Legal Aid Board makes hundreds of thousands of grants of legal assistance each year, whether to help people to deal with welfare benefit problems or to help those who are accused of criminal offences to defend themselves. Expenditure on legal assistance last year was £150.5 million. The Scottish Legal Aid Board’s annual report shows that, since 2011, changes to the legal system have saved the public purse £52 million. However, there is still more to do.
The Law Society’s paper is intended to open up discussion. We have a shared perspective on some points, such as the need for simplification, and we will of course take a detailed look at the Law Society’s proposals over the coming weeks, with a view to assessing their potential impact on public funds and on those who rely on legal aid.
The First Minister may remember that I raised concerns last year about proposed changes to legal aid. The president of the Law Society of Scotland said this week that legal aid cuts are likely to curb rights to justice for people on low and modest incomes who rely on legal aid. Does the First Minister agree that the prospect of citizens of modest means being denied access, as the Law Society suggests, while career criminals repeatedly access legal aid unfettered is indefensible and a foreseeable consequence arising from Mr MacAskill’s changes? Will the First Minister use whatever influence he has to ensure that the situation is addressed by his successor urgently?
As Graeme Pearson knows, expenditure on legal assistance in Scotland has been held at £150 million since 2007. Of course, that is not what has happened south of the border, where there have been substantial cuts. [Interruption.] Labour members should understand that, under the Barnett formula, the consequentials that come to Scotland are directed by expenditure in England. Unless they put forward a position where the great resources of Scotland are available for the Scottish people to direct our own spending, I am afraid that such matters are relevant.
Graeme Pearson should also understand that, although we were extremely interested in some aspects of the Law Society’s paper, such as the need for simplification, the paper has proved deeply controversial. He can see that from the debate that is opening up, in which people are pointing out that many areas of civil law are vital as part of legal aid assistance and criminal lawyers are pointing out that the fundamental right of people to defend themselves against a criminal charge is the essence of a free society.
There are no easy answers to the questions at present, but Graeme Pearson can rest assured that this Government and the Government of the immediate future will protect the right of the people of Scotland to legal assistance so that they can pursue their claims for justice.
Underground Coal Gasification (Licences)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on underground coal gasification and whether any licences have been granted for exploration. (S4F-02392)
The Coal Authority, which is, of course, a United Kingdom non-departmental public body that is sponsored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, has issued six licences for underground coal gasification in Scotland. All those licences are offshore or in estuaries. However, no underground coal gasification project can proceed in Scotland without a range of other permissions, including local planning and environmental consents, which, of course, are devolved issues.
The First Minister will be aware of the scientific consensus that we already have far too many fossil fuels to burn safely. Does he agree that his legacy should be a Scotland that meets its climate change targets, leads the world in climate justice and delivers thousands more new jobs in renewables? Does he agree that the Scottish Government must use the powers that it has to stop the damaging and destructive distraction of unconventional gas extraction in Scotland?
The Scottish Government recognises Alison Johnstone’s concerns, but it also recognises that we have to see the potential for new energy technologies, and the potential synergies between technologies such as underground coal gasification and carbon capture and storage, whereby CO2 emissions could be captured at source and transported for storage offshore, making it an extremely effective environmental process.
As Alison Johnstone will know, Scotland has world-leading expertise in carbon capture and storage. We have an excellent comparative advantage, such as access to vast offshore storage of CO2. However, we have been very clear that, when it comes to new technologies, we need to proceed cautiously and take an evidence-based approach to ensure that the environment is protected and, above all, that local communities’ concerns are properly taken into account.
Alison Johnstone will accept that whatever other criticisms might have been levelled at the Administration over the past seven and a half years, lack of enthusiasm for renewable energy could not be one of them. I am sure that she, like me, looks forward to celebrating a milestone that we are sure will be achieved in the very near future, when 50 per cent of Scotland’s effective demand for electricity is likely to be secured from renewable sources. That has been a transformative initiative over the past seven years. I am sure that Alison Johnstone and I have common cause in and enthusiasm for that record.
Yesterday, the world-renowned energy expert Professor Dieter Helm of the University of Oxford described Alex Salmond’s energy policy as “nonsense”. Will the First Minister advise his successor to rethink that nonsense policy?
The Conservative Party in the United Kingdom coalition described Liberal Democrat energy policy as nonsense, and the Liberal Democrats in the coalition at Westminster described the Conservative Party’s energy policy as nonsense. The energy policy that we have been able to pursue in Scotland, which has seen a surge forward in renewable energy, is extremely effective.
Of course, it would be fantastic if other areas of energy policy were under the control of this Parliament. I would like, for example, not to have seen the total chaos that has resulted in the electricity markets—as a result of coalition policies at Westminster—which is threatening the people of England with blackouts or brownouts in the very near future. I would like to have seen things like oil and gas under the control of the Scottish Parliament, so that the great natural resources of Scotland could be invested in the future of the Scottish economy.
How disappointing it is that although, once upon a time, Murdo Fraser was in the vanguard of Scottish Conservative thinking—if that is not a contradiction in terms—he now meekly, in this probable last question to me, comes to the chamber to diminish the ability of this Parliament and a future Administration to control energy policy, when we are light years ahead of what has happened to what has remained at Westminster.
That ends the last First Minister’s questions by First Minister Alex Salmond. [Applause.]
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Home Safety Kits