Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-353)
Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland, including on how to build a parliamentary alliance to defeat the unholy alliance between Labour and Tory that is trying to prevent the reintroduction of free education in Scotland.
Last week I raised the issue of support for families with disabled children. Essentially, the First Minister confirmed that, although families in England and Wales will benefit from a £340 million dedicated fund, the £34 million share for Scottish families will not be protected for that purpose. This week we all learned how readily the First Minister will meet those whom he believes to be important. Before Christmas, will he meet the representatives of Scotland's 50,000 families with disabled children and explain to them why they cannot have the same support, for which they have campaigned so long and hard, as families in England and Wales?
I will be delighted to meet such families. I will be able to point out to them that our concordat with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities includes a commitment to progress to an extra 10,000 respite weeks per year. Wendy Alexander should start to read the documents a bit more carefully.
I have read the concordat very carefully, and the truth is that it makes no specific mention of support for disabled children. There is a very non-specific line on respite places, but it does not say that those are dedicated to children. The only outcome in which the 50,000 families to which I referred are interested is a guarantee that they will receive a package of support equal to that of their cousins in England and Wales. Those families do not have £1 billion to invest in Scotland, but the care that they provide would cost us billions of pounds to provide from the public purse. Unpaid carers save Scotland more than £7 billion. Do they not deserve the same hearing as Mr Trump's representatives? Why has no minister apparently met the families so far to discuss how the £34 million should be spent?
The Deputy First Minister met young carers in Ayrshire this Monday—Wendy Alexander should try to catch up and keep up with developments.
Meeting young carers is not the same as meeting the families who campaigned for £34 million to be made available. I ask again: why has no minister apparently met those families to discuss how the money will be spent in Scotland? Let me make it easy for the First Minister. At next week's meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee, Labour colleagues will move an amendment that will protect the £34 million and guarantee that that support goes to families with disabled children. Will the First Minister belatedly act and direct Scottish National Party members on the committee to support the amendment?
We know what Labour members get up to at committees: they combine with the Conservative party to stop free education in Scotland—[Interruption.] Wendy Alexander walked right into that one.
I welcome the fact that the First Minister has finally agreed to meet those families, whom he has not met so far. That presents a chance to repair the damage with organisations such as Inclusion Scotland, because the families have campaigned for the money for years. Next week, there will be a chance to begin to repair the damage.
Wendy Alexander said quite rightly that the families have been campaigning for years. What was she doing during the past eight years, when the families were campaigning?
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-354)
I expect to meet the Prime Minister at the next meeting of the British-Irish Council, in Dublin early next year.
On Thursday 29 November, Aberdeenshire Council rejected the Trump application—a final decision in terms of the council's procedures. On Monday 3 December, the First Minister met the Trump team in Aberdeen. That same day, the Trump team made it clear to journalists that no appeal would be lodged and that there were only 30 days in which to save the development. On the following day, the Scottish Government called in the planning application—a decision that raised eyebrows in planning circles, because no appeal had been lodged.
On the member's second point, I had already met Sustainable Aberdeenshire, as well as Michael Forbes, the objecting farmer and Mrs Forbes, his mother—all excellent and friendly people.
I remind members that the only party that the First Minister met after the rejection of the application was the developer.
Order.
Was the meeting of 3 December ever denied and, if so, why? What individual issued the press statement that was eventually given to a local paper about that meeting, which the First Minister insists he attended as a constituency MSP? When, on 4 December, the Government's chief planner telephoned the chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council to advise that the application was being called in, was any other party present or participating in that telephone call?
The answers to the parliamentary questions that have been asked will also answer those specific questions.
No you are not.
Order. Order.
I suggest that, as it applies to them, all members of this Parliament should look at section 3.15 of the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament, which says that members should be accessible to their constituency's interests.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-355)
The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Were any representatives of the Trump Organization in the chief planner's room when he telephoned Aberdeenshire Council about the Trump proposals last Tuesday, the very day on which the application was called in?
I was not there. It is not my responsibility.
Aberdeenshire Council will confirm that it had to ask for the Trump representatives to leave the chief planner's room during a phone call last Tuesday. This is a serious situation for the First Minister and his Government. Every step of the way, there has been contradiction, concealment and cleverness from his Government on the issue. It smells of sleaze. Will he now establish an independent inquiry to investigate what happened in those 48 hours last Monday and Tuesday, to find out why the developers were present with the chief planner on the very day that their application was called in and to examine what pressure the chief planner was put under by ministers to take the potentially prejudicial actions that now jeopardise the project? Does he understand that few people will now believe that his Government is a fair and proper body to decide the application in an open and transparent way?
My behaviour as First Minister in the matter has followed the rule book exactly. The only confusion and dislocation has come from the Liberal-led Aberdeenshire Council's procedures, which caused certain difficulty. The one thing that people both for and against the development are agreed on is that they find it somewhat surprising that, for such a major development, we could arrive at a position in which it looked like 46 members of Aberdeenshire Council would never get a substantive vote—for or against—on the development.
Order.
Nicol Stephen's role in the matter cannot be explained as being helpful to the process no matter whether one's point of view is for or against the development. Is he really interested in good processes in planning in Scotland, or is he interested in forgetting his conflict of interests last year in the decision on the Aberdeen bypass?
I have received a number of requests for supplementary questions. I will take one from Margo MacDonald.
Is the First Minister aware of the dire situation as regards affordable housing in Edinburgh? Last week, 1,024 applications were lodged for one former council house. Next week, it is entirely possible that the city will be unable to meet its obligations under the homeless persons legislation for priority needs cases. Can he assure me that the new Government will do what the previous Government failed to do and urge the Treasury to create a level playing field for places where people voted to remain in council control rather than to transfer?
The answer to Margo MacDonald's question is yes. That level playing field is essential. The Government's decision on the right to buy is also important in allowing an even playing field for public sector provision by councils in Scotland. That councils have built virtually no houses in Scotland over the past few years is absolutely deplorable. If we are to reconcile the needs of the people with future housing policy, Margo MacDonald's suggestion should be taken up by all political parties and not just the Government.
I will take a further supplementary from Roseanna Cunningham.
Does the First Minister agree that the Defence Aviation Repair Agency's rotary wing and components business at Almondbank in my constituency is profoundly important for the military helicopter fleet, as well as providing more than 300 highly specialised and much-needed local jobs? Is he as concerned as I am at the likely imminent announcement of the sale of the Almondbank facility to a small Canadian company, with all that that implies? Will he join me in supporting proposals that have been submitted by the joint trade unions that would ensure the long-term viability and success of the business within the public sector? Will he accept my invitation to visit DARA Almondbank just as soon as his diary permits?
I will be glad to arrange that meeting and that visit. I share the constituency member's concerns on the matter and I will be very happy to pursue it in that light.
Offshore Wind Projects
To ask the First Minister what discussions Scottish ministers have had with the United Kingdom Government concerning the development of offshore wind projects. (S3F-371)
The Scottish Government is pleased to be working with the UK Government on its strategic environmental assessment for offshore wind. The study will include Scotland's deep offshore waters and will be vital to unlocking our vast clean energy potential.
Given that a significant proportion of the UK's potential offshore wind, wave and tidal capacity is in Scottish waters, what steps will the Government take to ensure that the discriminatory connection charge regime comes to an end, thereby enabling Scotland to benefit fully from our huge renewable energy resource?
The Government, acting with major companies that are involved in the sector such as Scottish and Southern Energy, Scottish Power, Scottish Renewables—and, indeed, a number of local councils—has put together an unanswerable case for a level playing field in terms of access to grid connection in Scotland.
Does the First Minister agree that Burntisland Fabrications in my constituency embodies the economic benefits that Scottish business can look to secure from a healthy offshore wind sector? The company played a key role in developing the Beatrice project and I am delighted at its recent success. Will he join me in congratulating the company on the contribution that it has made, and will make, to the sector? Will he ensure that it can access the necessary infrastructural support that it requires to expand? I ask the question in light of the Scottish Enterprise reorganisation.
The Government has provided support to help to build up the energy centre in Fife in terms of construction and fabrication. I visited the facility when the Beatrice demonstrators were being built and the sight was hugely impressive. Tremendous economic benefits are available in the sector; the potential is enormous. As I am sure the constituency member knows, Burntisland Fabrications has positioned itself not only as a key supplier for the Beatrice project but has been selected as the preferred bidder to supply 30 jacket substructures for the proposed Ormonde wind farm. I understand that the company is also heavily involved in looking to expand the Fife energy park.
At a meeting of the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency last night, Neil Kermode of the European Marine Energy Centre made the point that offshore wind, wave and tidal energy resources are rarely, if ever, to be found in the same place. What assessment has the Government made of where those sources of renewable energy will best be harnessed? Will the First Minister confirm that, in the decisions that are made on grid connection, one technology will not be played off against another? In his new-found friendly and constructive discussions with UK ministers, will he reinforce the need for improved access to the marine renewables development fund for those who seek to test and develop marine technologies in Scotland?
We intend to ensure that there is a competitive advantage for marine technology development in Scotland. On the question of access to the grid being determined on a fair basis, the process ensures the fair and just treatment of areas of Scotland that might otherwise be prevented from realising the enormous potential of their offshore resources; one technology is not played off against another. I assume that the member is referring to the different support levels, or banding requirements, that are involved. We have commented on the white paper proposals, and look forward to seeing the detail of the UK Government's energy bill, but the banding position is a matter for the UK Government.
The First Minister will be aware of the scientific advice to create closed areas to restore fish stocks. Does he agree that it would make sense to locate offshore wind farms where fish-stock regeneration is also a priority, always provided that that would be in the best interests of the breeding fish stocks?
There is a good argument for that, particularly if we look at how oilfield structures have, in turn, provided natural reefs that have helped the regeneration of fish stocks. I am sure that the member is aware that Scottish fishermen are probably the most advanced of any fishing community in Europe in suggesting a range of conservation measures, including the recent real-time closures, which give an excellent opportunity for the regeneration of our marine environment.
M74 Extension
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government remains committed to completing the M74 extension. (S3F-375)
Yes.
I thank the First Minister for that overwhelming support for the project. Does he agree, given the recent publicity about major developments, some of which have already been discussed during question time, that the M74 extension is the most important infrastructure project for Scotland in the coming 10 years, not only because of economic growth, but because of the commitment to make the Commonwealth games the best ever, to use his words? Does he agree that the project is far too important to be left to sometimes behind-closed-doors negotiations with the Greens? Does he agree that he should maintain his commitment to the development by ensuring that the contract is signed within 90 days? Unlike other developments, the project is made in Scotland and will be constructed in Scotland for the benefit of Scotland. I hope that he gives his support to us in the east end of Glasgow.
I am not certain what that unjustified attack on the Green representatives was all about. The constituency member should bring some evidence if he wants to make such disgraceful slurs and innuendo about the performance of the Green party, for which I can see no reason. In all seriousness, I point out that the scheme is a hugely important infrastructure project, so it is probably better to deal with the substance of the issue.
Every day, the Kingston bridge and the approaches to it are completely gridlocked, often for hours at a time. So many cars idling in traffic jams can have only a deleterious impact on the environment and the west of Scotland economy. Does the First Minister agree not only that completing the M74 is vital to the regeneration of the west of Scotland economy, but that it could have been expedited much sooner had the unholy trinity of Labour, Tory and Liberal members not voted to squander £490 million on an entirely superfluous Edinburgh tram scheme?
As I just told Frank McAveety to stay on the vitally important subject, I suppose that I should try to answer the question in a manner that the importance of the M74 completion deserves. I agree that the project is vital. It is being progressed by Government, as I said. Surely no one in the Parliament would suggest that value for money and proper consideration of tenders should be overlooked in pursuit of completing a vitally important infrastructure project.
Ministerial Code (Complaints)
To ask the First Minister whether he will consider appointing an independent person to investigate complaints made under the Scottish ministerial code. (S3F-361)
In line with practice after each Scottish parliamentary election, we are currently reviewing the ministerial code. The review is considering a range of issues, including procedures for the handling of complaints under the code.
The First Minister polices the code and acts as sole judge of complaints, even if one is made against himself. Does he not agree that we need an independent person, free of the Scottish Government and civil service, to investigate complaints and that that could be the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner? Does he not recognise that such a move is needed, not only to protect the standing of the office of First Minister, but to secure the confidence of the people of Scotland that we have a fair, open and transparent process?
The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner has indicated that he is not up for an extension of his role to cover those matters.
We started late, so I will take a very brief final question from Jackie Baillie.
Given that the First Minister has acknowledged that he is responsible to the Parliament, will he listen if the Parliament agrees to have independent oversight of the ministerial code?
I shall look at the Donald Dewar dictum on such matters, in which he explained the responsibilities of Government to Parliament. I thought that that was an excellent explanation and I suggest that Jackie Baillie should read it some time.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time