Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, November 15, 2012

Official Report 809KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00974)

I am sure that the whole chamber will join me in offering our sincere condolences to the family of Captain Walter Reid Barrie of the Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, who was tragically killed in Helmand province, Afghanistan, on remembrance Sunday. It is clear from the many heartfelt tributes paid to Captain Barrie in recent days that he was a popular, dedicated and widely respected soldier. As his body is returned to these islands today, he will be remembered as a fine example of the Scottish soldier, and the thoughts of the whole Parliament are with his family at this sad time.

That was eloquently put by the First Minister. We, too, send our condolences to the family at this saddest of times.

On 28 June, Mike Russell, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, told the chamber:

“There is no reduction in funding for colleges in financial year 2012-13.”

He repeated—to applause from Scottish National Party members, unsurprisingly—

“Presiding Officer, there is no reduction in funding for colleges in financial year 2012-13.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2012; c 10776.]

Was he right, or was he misleading the Parliament?

He was correct. The resource funding position for colleges is £545 million in 2011-12, and it is £546 million in 2012-13.

Although Mike Russell was famously—or perhaps, notoriously—grasping the thistle, it seems that the First Minister was grasping for an answer. Unfortunately, it was not a correct one. [Interruption.]

Order.

The truth is, as we have found out from the Auditor General and from the independent Scottish Parliament information centre, that the cabinet secretary was, in fact, wrong. College budgets have been cut this year. In the light of those independently sourced facts, was Mike Russell right, or was he misleading the Parliament?

An increase from £545 million to a £546 million resource budget is, by definition, an increase in funding. Incidentally, that is about as exact an answer as anybody has given in any Parliament, and I cannot imagine why Johann Lamont read out something that was obviously pre-prepared.

The Audit Scotland report, of course—as Johann Lamont may or may not be aware—did not take account of the increases in funding that were announced after the provisional budget, which is why, in that sense, the Audit Scotland report was out of date. [Interruption.] If the report did not take account of announcements that had been made, by definition, that means it was out of date. It might well be that Audit Scotland, because of the timing, is not responsible for that, but surely Labour members must be aware of that because they have devoted a great deal of time and attention to the issue.

Given that the resource budget has increased to £546 million—at a time, incidentally, when the business budget for further education colleges south of the border has been declining dramatically—that represents, in these extraordinarily difficult times, an increase of funding between the two financial years.

That was this week’s white noise. The First Minister’s pre-prepared defence of his minister was ill advised. In weeks past, we have seen the credibility of the First Minister’s back benches burned in defending him; he is ill advised to burn his credibility in defending his education minister. No matter how big the briefing in front of him, I must tell him that not even Mike Russell believes Mike Russell anymore.

The Official Report of this Parliament records Mike Russell as saying:

“There is no reduction in funding for colleges in financial year 2012-13.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2012; c 10776.]

However, yesterday, he denied it. He told the Parliament:

“I take the opportunity to say that I have never said that there were no cuts”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2012; c 13463.]

Mike Russell is saying—[Interruption.]

Order.

Mike Russell is saying that he never said what he said. Thank goodness it was being recorded on both occasions because, of course, those two statements by him cannot both be right. The reality is that college budgets are being slashed. It is no longer a question of whether Mike Russell misled Parliament; the question is when he did so. Is misleading Parliament not the kind of offence that should cost a minister his job?

The first of the two quotations referred to financial years 2011-12—the £545 million—and 2012-13, which is the £546 million. Revenue funding for colleges is projected to go to £512 million in 2013-14. That gives Johann Lamont the absolute reason why Mr Russell has factually reported the situation to the Parliament.

Thanks to the investment in the regionalisation process and the non-profit-distributing programme, if we look at resource and capital funding over that period, the budget goes from £590 million to £616 million. That is the investment of which members will be aware, which they will see throughout Scotland—in Forth Valley College, Kilmarnock College, the Glasgow colleges and Inverness College—and which is transforming the infrastructure of the college sector in Scotland.

Given the fact that Johann Lamont now has those figures and that they are perfectly compatible with what Mr Russell said in the chamber, perhaps she will withdraw one of her many resignation calls.

In the world of the SNP, where you can say whatever you like, whenever you like, regardless of what you said yesterday and what you are going to say tomorrow, presumably—

Members: You, you, you.

Order.

Presumably that qualifies as a credible answer. In the rest of the world, it makes no sense. [Interruption.]

Order.

I remind the First Minister that Mr Russell said there were no cuts in 2012-13. [Interruption.] I will repeat it. He said that there would be no cuts in 2012-13. Yesterday, he said that he never said that there would be no cuts. Those two things do not match. [Interruption.]

Order.

The First Minister is well aware that the Auditor General has said that no case has been made for regionalisation.

It would be serious enough if Mike Russell had misled only the Parliament, but he has also misled the people of Scotland, including the 100,000 young people who are out of work and would benefit from the college sector being funded and invested in rather than being cut.

This week, we found out that Mike Russell told a college chair—[Interruption.]

We know that, if the SNP back benchers are noisy, it is because they do not like hearing what is being said to them. It would suit them better to ask the hard questions themselves from time to time rather than be background noise. [Interruption.]

Order.

This week, Mike Russell told a college chair that he should resign because he no longer had any trust in him. No one can have any trust in Mike Russell after this week.

This week, we found out that Mike Russell told a college chair that he would sack him if he had the power.

Question, question.

Mike Russell has misled the Parliament and the First Minister has the power to sack him.

Ms Lamont, could we have a question?

Why will the First Minister not sack a minister—[Interruption.]

Order.

Why will the First Minister not sack a minister who denies our young people an opportunity to go to college and, when challenged about it, misleads the Parliament? [Interruption.]

Order. Can we hear the First Minister?

When Johann Lamont has reached the stage of appealing for the SNP back benchers to do her job for her and ask the questions on her behalf, it reveals the full extent of her unwillingness to accept the facts—£545 million to £546 million is not a cut in funding.

The projected future move to £512 million is, but luckily the investment in capital gives hope for the colleges on the regionalisation process. By any measure, the colleges and universities of Scotland are being extraordinarily well funded in comparison with the colleges and universities south of the border. That is obvious. It should be a matter of some celebration for the chamber that this year we have a record number of Scottish full-time students at college and university in Scotland, despite the extraordinarily difficult financial circumstances.

I am afraid that I was rather expecting Johann Lamont’s course of questioning. Unfortunately for her, Paul Sinclair had already tweeted the call for Mr Russell’s resignation this morning. He said that Mr Russell was

“now exposed and he should now quit”,

so it was not the greatest surprise on earth to me for that call to be repeated, puppet-like, by Johann Lamont a few hours later.

Today’s call adds to the long list—the litany—of resignation calls that the Labour Party has made to the Government. It has called for the resignation of Kenny MacAskill, John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Richard Lochhead, Fiona Hyslop and—again—Nicola Sturgeon. The only person whose resignation it has not called for is me. That is a totally extraordinary situation, but we wait for next week, when Paul Sinclair will no doubt set Johann Lamont right.

The only difficulty with Paul Sinclair and turning the Labour Party into an extended version of Twitter is that other people tweet as well. On 1 November, Ian Smart, the prominent Labour blogger and former president of the Law Society of Scotland, wrote:

“If there is a more stupid, politically tone deaf, possibly fifth columnist, political adviser than Paul Sinclair then I’ve yet to meet them.”

That is from a Labour source. If that is what the Labour Party thinks about the Labour Party, it is little wonder that the extension of Labour into one massive tweet does nothing for politics in this country.

The First Minister is responsible for addressing the needs of the unemployed young people in this country. The idea that a juvenile trawl through the tweets of this world is any kind of response is a complete disgrace to anyone in this place or anywhere else who believes themselves fit to represent the people of Scotland.

I am not responsible for the juvenile tweets of Paul Sinclair—that is Johann Lamont’s responsibility. Our responsibility is to invest in the Scottish economy through the capital investment programme. The record number of apprenticeships in the Scottish economy—26,000—is our responsibility, as is the small business bonus, which is helping small companies to survive. Our responsibility is to get for this Parliament the economic powers that will allow us to take the country to prosperity and economic freedom.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. I would like to associate myself and the entire Scottish Conservative Party with the First Minister’s remarks about Captain Walter Reid Barrie, and to pass on our condolences to his family after the tragic events of remembrance day.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00970)

I thank Ruth Davidson for making it clear that the whole Parliament endorses those remarks.

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

Yesterday, we heard the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning ignore the impact of Scottish National Party policies on Scotland’s colleges as simply getting rid of what he arrogantly dismissed as “hobby courses”.

I will give a few examples of courses that are now no longer available under the education secretary’s stewardship: higher national certificate in diagnostic imaging—gone; higher national diploma in human resource management—gone; HND in technical support—gone; HND in network computing—gone; qualifications in healthcare and nursing—gone. Mike Russell has labelled those subjects “hobbies”, which they are anything but.

Will the First Minister instruct his education secretary to apologise for his insulting attitude towards the thousands of ordinary people who are doing nothing but their best to improve their lives?

As Ruth Davidson should know, the reason for the commitment in terms of full-time equivalent courses in colleges is to ensure that we maintain the number of students in those courses—the courses that she mentioned. Indeed, we have increased that number since 2006-07.

The reason for measuring the full-time equivalent courses is simple. It is that the full-time equivalent values a year-long course—full-time courses such as the courses that Ruth Davidson mentioned—in a proper way. It does not say that such a course is the same as a three-month or two-month course. That is why the full-time equivalent figure is incredibly important.

This year, in terms of full-time equivalents, a record number of Scottish students are at Scottish colleges and universities. If Ruth Davidson cared to glance south, she would see a dramatic decline in student numbers across the college and university sector in England.

If Ruth Davidson came here with a programme and she could say, “We will invest in colleges and universities, and look at the tremendous record of our colleagues south of the border,” she would have some credibility, but she is in no position to attack a situation in which we have managed, under the most extreme financial pressure from her colleagues, to secure a record number of Scottish students in full-time courses at college and university in Scotland. I believe that that is an achievement and a commitment to the young people of Scotland.

Let us ask the First Minister to look at the situation north of the border, because the 70,000 fewer places here are not an illusion. That is the harsh reality and it is part of the choices that his Scottish Government is making.

The First Minister just said that he is delivering for Scottish colleges under what he calls severe financial pressure. Conservative members accept that the Scottish budget has had a 6 per cent real-terms cut—although it is still up in cash terms—but he must accept that a 24 per cent cut to college budgets comes directly from him and not from Westminster. That is his responsibility. [Interruption.]

Order.

There are now 70,000 fewer opportunities for ordinary people to learn skills that would help them to get on. As the unemployment gap between the rest of the UK and Scotland grows, those people need more opportunities, not fewer. The truth is that the First Minister is raiding college budgets to fund the Scottish National Party’s electoral bribe of free university places.

Question, please.

That is little more than educational arrogance and snobbery: university good, solid college places bad. [Interruption.]

Order.

When will this First Minister finally admit that his priorities are damaging the chances of thousands of ordinary Scots?

I do not think that snobbery is the strongest ground for the Conservative Party.

Can we get back to the facts? Let us do a direct comparison. As Ruth Davidson well knows, finances in Scotland are—for the time being—controlled by budgets south of the border. According to projections, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills further education resource budget for colleges in England will decline from £4.4 billion to £3.2 billion, which is an extraordinary cut in nominal and real terms.

The position that Ruth Davidson quoted for the projection in Scotland was from before Mr Swinney was—wisely—able to find more funds in the revised budget for the college sector this year. The revenue budget for resource for colleges and student support will go from £545 million to £546 million in 2012-13. In comparison with the situation south of the border, that is an extraordinary achievement.

The intention to concentrate on full-time courses is because we are looking to secure employment for the youngsters involved. The fact that a record number of our youngsters are in full-time courses in colleges and universities in Scotland, against the dramatic declines from Ruth Davidson’s party’s Government south of the border, represents a substantial investment in our young people and a substantial achievement for the Scottish Government in the most difficult circumstances.

I understand that Ruth Davidson’s answer to looking for extra funding for Scotland’s colleges is to cut income tax in Scotland and offer another £1 billion reduction in Scotland’s budget. That is what she appeared to say in her anniversary address last week.

If Ruth Davidson can ever reconcile what is currently happening in London for English colleges with a much better position that is defended in Scotland, and if she can reconcile her ambition to slash Scotland’s revenue budget even further with her calls for investment in Scotland’s college sector, she will come to the chamber with a degree of credibility. If she ever comes to have a degree of credibility, I will not care whether or not the Conservative Party is snobbish.

Jamie Hepburn has a brief constituency question.

The First Minister will be aware of the details that are emerging about the proposed merger between AG Barr and Britvic. It has been reported that, as a result of the merger, some 500 jobs may be lost out of a combined workforce between the two companies of 4,000. Does the First Minister agree that it is incumbent on AG Barr to clarify, as a matter of urgency, what that means for the workforce and factory at the Cumbernauld site?

The constituency member raises an understandable and important constituency concern. I hope that the company is able to explain in more detail the consequences for the workforce as the merger process goes through. The company is extremely successful, and there is every reason to believe that it will continue to be extremely successful. I think that everybody in Scotland will want that success to be shared by its workforce.

---

BBC Scotland (Job Losses)

3. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the likely impact of the proposed job losses at BBC Scotland. (S4F-00980)

This is a very important time for Scotland, and it is vital that BBC Scotland maintains the highest standards of quality in reporting public debate. The Scottish Government continues to hold grave concerns about the ability to achieve that in the face of the proposed job losses and, indeed, the job losses that have already happened.

The Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs and I have regularly expressed our concerns to the BBC about the risks to its news and current affairs output. I hope that, now more than ever, the BBC is able to heed those warnings.

The First Minister will be aware of the “Newsnight” report and the subsequent events that flowed from it, including the £450,000 pay-off. In light of those events, does the First Minister think that it is appropriate for the BBC to continue with its disproportionate cuts to staff at BBC Scotland, particularly as those cuts will be detrimental to the BBC’s ability to give wide coverage of the major events that will take place in Scotland over the next few years?

First, I make the very important point that the crisis that is currently engulfing the BBC must not be allowed to obscure the underlying issues, which relate to extremely serious allegations of abuse and exploitation of children. Although those allegations date back a number of years, they must be properly investigated.

That situation underlies serious and institutional failures of leadership at the BBC, which must be immediately addressed. This morning, I expressed my view publicly that the public would have confidence and trust in Greg Dyke taking forward the corporation’s own inquiries into the issue. More than that, I think that journalists in the BBC would have great confidence in him. We remember the demonstrations that took place when he was unfairly evicted from the BBC some years ago.

Such an appointment would be a good start in restoring the BBC’s reputation. I can speak from personal experience about the most recent director general, who understood the commitment that our national broadcaster has to covering the full extent and range of political and current debate in Scotland.

The loss of senior BBC editorial staff in the north may well mean that programmes are driven from Pacific Quay rather than Plockton. Does the First Minister share my view that the BBC’s responsibility is to represent all of Scotland, not just the central belt?

I agree with that, and I welcome the member raising the issue again. I arranged a meeting with the new director general to discuss that very point, but unfortunately that meeting will have to be with someone else. Nonetheless, the important point that the BBC, as Scotland’s national broadcaster, must serve all the country is well made by David Stewart, and I support it.

---

Fuel Duty Increase

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s assessment is of the economic impact on Scotland of the planned 3p increase in fuel duty. (S4F-00972)

The increase in fuel duty would represent a £130 million tax rise for Scottish households and businesses at a time when Scottish motorists already face some of the highest fuel costs in Europe and it will serve to undermine economic recovery. Recent research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research shows that, as well as representing a tax rise for households and businesses, the increase in fuel duty could cost up to 50,000 jobs across the United Kingdom.

The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that 79 per cent of its members say that fuel prices are having a damaging effect on their business and 62 per cent say that they are having to increase their prices as a result. In a week when inflation has increased again and the Bank of England has cut its forecast for economic growth, does the First Minister agree that the chancellor should listen to households and businesses, cancel the 3p rise and put fuel prices on a stable footing with a proper fuel duty regulator?

It should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, pre-tax prices for petrol and diesel are among the lowest—they are the second-lowest—in Europe, but prices at the pump are among the highest in Europe. The Treasury now takes 81p per litre in VAT and fuel duty, which contributes to inflation and, particularly at this time, threatens to damage the economy. The chancellor needs to take key steps in a few days’ time in the autumn budget statement. He needs to invest in growth, support recovery and increase capital investment substantially, and another step would be to cancel the fuel duty rise.

---

Criminal Legal Aid

5. To ask the First Minister what the purpose is of the Scottish Government’s proposed changes to criminal legal aid. (S4F-00986)

The purpose of the changes that are set out in the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Bill is to introduce contributions to solicitors’ fees in criminal legal aid, where the client can afford to pay such contributions. Doing so will ensure parity between the different types of legal aid and, by delivering savings, will help to maintain access to justice in economically difficult times.

I welcome the reference to parity. Given that contributions under civil legal aid are collected centrally by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, will the First Minister undertake to establish the full costs to the board of doing the same for contributions under criminal legal aid and instruct the board to discuss those costs with representatives of the legal profession before the bill returns to the chamber at stage 3?

It would cost an estimated £600,000 for SLAB, rather than solicitors, to collect summary contributions. That would be a very significant sum when we face a situation in which the budget for legal aid is being cut by 7.3 per cent, which of course compares with a decline in England and Wales of 17 per cent. The effort has been to maintain access to justice and to prevent budget restrictions from having a damaging impact on that, with adverse consequences for other aspects of the justice system. That is what we are trying to do. There is no doubt that the proposals will lead to more efficient collection of contributions.

Lewis Macdonald will be well aware that solicitors already collect clients’ contributions for advice and assistance, preliminary work and guilty pleas, so the principle already exists in the system. In these difficult times, I hope that everyone realises that trying to protect the basis of the legal aid system requires a system that works in the most efficient and economically viable way.

---

Scottish Police Authority and Chief Constable for Scotland

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on reports of a so-called turf war between the chief executive of the Scottish Police Authority and the chief constable for Scotland. (S4F-00971)

The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 sets out clear roles and responsibilities for the Scottish Police Authority and the chief constable. It is for the SPA and the chief constable to decide how best to fulfil those responsibilities. Discussions are on-going on the scope of the functions that the SPA will deliver. The SPA has written to the Scottish Government setting out a framework under which decisions on the issue will be made by its board, in consultation with the chief constable.

As it is not seemly—to put it mildly—for the issue to be trailed in the media, with alleged quarrels over who is to be in charge of backroom staffing and information technology, will the First Minister confirm that issues of the framework and demarcating the functions of the SPA and the chief constable will be resolved soon, and that we can be confident that operational policing is solely the responsibility and remit of the chief constable?

I am happy to say that I believe that progress is being made on the issue. We have made it clear to the SPA that it must put in place a process to reach an agreed position, in partnership with the chief constable. As I mentioned, the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 sets out clear roles and responsibilities. It is for the SPA and chief constable to decide how best to fulfil those responsibilities, but discussions are on-going on the scope of the functions that the SPA will deliver. No proposals have been submitted as yet, so no decisions have been taken, but the process certainly will not act on the chief constable’s operational independence.

In the light of his response, will the First Minister acknowledge that the Parliament’s intention in legislating was to deliver full operational independence to the incoming chief constable and that moves to limit that independence would be unwelcome and unwarranted?

As I said to the convener of the Justice Committee, the proposals will not impact on the chief constable’s operational independence.

In no way do I think that the Parliament should interfere with the running or management of the new police force, but I hope that we will have a chance to comment on the plans before they are put into effect, and I would like to know whether there are plans that would take care of a chief constable who—I will be delicate—does not quite work out.

Margo MacDonald will never be short of opportunities to comment in the Parliament and elsewhere. I assure Margo that progress is being made on the issue. To facilitate more comment, I shall write to her and keep her informed of the progress that is being made.