Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00047)
Immediately after First Minister’s questions I, in conjunction with the Opposition party leaders, will be meeting some of Scotland’s unpaid carers, who are in the Parliament to mark carers week. I am sure that the whole chamber will join me in expressing our thanks to Scotland’s unpaid carers. Today, the carers are visitors to the Parliament, but I hope that they will soon be here on a more formal basis, as we take forward our proposal for a carers parliament to ensure that the views and needs of Scotland’s carers properly inform the work that we undertake in government and in the chamber. [Applause.]
Yesterday, we saw another attack by the First Minister on one of Scotland’s most senior judges. The political editor of The Times commented on Twitter:
“Going by Salmond attack on Lord Hope, the First Minister has finally lost the plot.”
Well, has he?
No.
That of course was one of the milder comments that followed on from the First Minister’s comments in his Holyrood magazine interview. At the very least, the First Minister is in danger, if not of losing the plot, then of losing any argument that he might have by prosecuting it in that way. This morning, Jim Sillars, the former deputy leader of the Scottish National Party, called the First Minister’s remarks “undignified”, “foolish” and “juvenile”. In the remarks that the First Minister aimed at Lord Hope, he said:
“At least I went to the bother of getting elected.”
That is true, but those crass personal attacks demean the office to which he was elected. Will he retract them?
I conducted the interview with Holyrood magazine two weeks ago, when we were engaged in a vigorous debate on these matters. Since then, I have appointed a panel of people of eminence and expertise under Lord McCluskey to advise the Parliament. Their views will then be debated in the Parliament so that we can address the underlying issue. That is how we should proceed, and I look forward to the McCluskey report.
When Iain Gray asked that earlier question, it struck me that there was something about this losing the plot business. Just by happenchance—I had no prior knowledge of Iain Gray’s question—I came across a quote in The Guardian of 15 May 2003 from David Blunkett, the Labour Home Secretary at the time. The report said:
“David Blunkett’s spat with the judges over their sentencing powers plumbed new depths yesterday when he accused a ... high court judge of not living in the real world and the leader of Britain’s barristers of ‘losing the plot’.”
We all have the right of fair comment. I am interested that Iain Gray’s memory of his colleagues in London and the various political ramifications of judicial decisions is not so perfect, if he repeats their language but does not remember the case.
My view that the remarks were inappropriate is not one that I alone hold. We have seen comments that the First Minister’s statements were crude, ignorant and embarrassing. That is not my judgment; it is the judgment of commentators and the legal establishment. It is no answer for the First Minister of Scotland to say, “This is something I said two weeks ago when I was in a bad mood.” The truth is that the issue has spiralled out of control. It started with the usual constitutional grandstanding and led to gratuitous attacks on judges, courts, lawyers and even newspapers that dared to question the First Minister. That has brought us to an extraordinary joint statement from the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland, which described the situation as
“a challenge not only to the courts but to the rule of law.”
The First Minister is now taking the advice of the editor of The Scotsman to “Calm down, Alex, dear”, but he must also grow up, own up and apologise so that the debate can move on and be conducted in the way that it should have been from the word go. Will he apologise?
No, I will go forward—as I think the Parliament should go forward—on the basis of looking at the expert views of Lord McCluskey and his panel. There has been a general welcome for that approach. Let the Parliament debate those views and get to the underlying issue. Iain Gray cites in his favour a range of figures, so I will cite figures who have spoken out and said that there is an issue of concern that must be addressed. They include Paul McBride QC, an adviser, at one stage at least, to the Conservative Party; Ian Smart, former president of the Law Society of Scotland and a founder of Scottish Labour Action; and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who said that Alex Salmond is “spot-on.” There is also Elish Angiolini, the former Lord Advocate, and the Scottish judiciary in their submission to the Advocate General for Scotland’s review of devolution issues.
There is an issue that requires to be addressed. The interaction of the judiciary and parliamentary comment is of course age old. The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed in the legislation that we passed in the Parliament in 2008. However, it is not just about a right of free speech, which everyone in this debate should have—including Lord Hope, who exercised his. I have made no complaint about that, just as I make no complaint about the right of anyone to exercise their right of free speech. However, when you are First Minister of Scotland, or for that matter an Opposition leader, you have to address matters of key public concern.
The integrity of the criminal law of Scotland is a matter of public concern. It was never meant to be second-guessed in the way that is happening at present. It is an issue of public concern that compensation payments are paid to criminals in Scotland under a liability that does not exist in any other jurisdiction. Those are points of public concern. As well as a right of free speech, we have a duty as parliamentarians to articulate the public concerns and try to bring proper remedy.
The First Minister cites some important principles that underpin our democracy. The problem is that his public statements to the press and otherwise undercut those principles, and that is what his critics are saying to him.
Let us examine some of those fundamental principles. The First Minister attacked a lawyer for representing people because they are vile. His justice secretary threatened to cut off funding from a court because he did not like its judgments. I do not like some of its judgments either, but vile people having rights is the price that we pay for us all to have those rights. Vile people being properly defended in court is the price that we pay for our right to be defended too. Yes, we make the laws, but the independence of the judiciary is the price that we pay for the freedom to do that. Does the First Minister agree? Will he retract his statements, which undermine those principles of the Parliament?
It was this Administration that underpinned our commitment to the independence of the judiciary in statute, through the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.
I am afraid that Iain Gray misrepresents the issue in the Somerville case. The issue was not one of human rights in respect of what the Scottish courts laid down when they said that people had a human right to proper sanitation in the Scottish prison estate. It was that the Somerville judgment extended the liability for that not by one year, which would have been the same as in every jurisdiction in Europe, but back to 1999.
We could take the view that the people responsible for that potential liability were the people who were in office in 2001-02: Lord Wallace, who was the justice secretary in this Parliament, and Iain Gray, who was the deputy justice secretary. We might say that they should have had the foresight to ensure that sanitation was proper. Alternatively, we might say that the issue was not the fact that the Scottish courts directed the correction in that situation, which was done, but whether our liability as citizens should extend back to 1999, which offered a potential legal bill of £50 million or, according to one estimate, £100 million.
That is an issue of huge public concern. It is not, as Iain Gray represents it, about whether everybody should have human rights. It is about whether this Parliament, this jurisdiction and this legal system stand in equality with every other jurisdiction in western Europe. If Iain Gray is going to stand on the argument that, regardless of the bill of liability to honest, decent, law-abiding people, we should respect it back to 1999 and make compensation payments to the vilest members of society on that basis, I think that he will stand in a very lonely position indeed.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00042)
I met the Prime Minister last week and have no immediate plans to meet him again.
The First Minister’s interview with Holyrood magazine amounted to an extraordinary rant that was characterised by bile, intemperance, provocative personal insults and a sneering disregard for the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. No one denies that there is a serious issue with how the Supreme Court engages with Scots law in determining human rights issues. It is right that the mechanisms be looked at. However, the First Minister’s blustering, bellicose outburst has totally obscured the real issue, made a laughing stock of Alex Salmond and, most serious of all, diminished the office of First Minister. Will he now apologise for bringing the office of First Minister into disrepute?
No.
Just over a month ago, the First Minister said that he does not have a monopoly on wisdom—that is self-evident. Unfortunately, as characterised by his answer to my first question, he seems to have a monopoly on bombast, arrogance and conceit. Just to bring him back down to earth and to remind him, once again, that the judiciary is independent of Government, I point out that there is still a good old Scottish criminal offence called murmuring a judge. Rather than run the risk of the Lord Advocate having to prosecute the First Minister, would it not be easier for the First Minister to eat humble pie, admit that he botched this whole issue and apologise to all concerned?
For many years, Annabel Goldie has been saying that I did not give direct answers to direct questions. She asked me a direct question and I gave her a direct answer, but it is now suggested to me that I should speak at greater length.
If I can speak at greater length on this second question, then let me say this: I am delighted that, after several weeks of being in denial, Annabel Goldie now recognises that we are dealing with a serious underlying issue. [Interruption.] I see that Conservative members are suggesting that that is not true. Can I read what Paul McBride, the legal adviser to the Conservative Party said about this issue? I apologise if any of this language is intemperate. He described Annabel Goldie’s position as “beyond ludicrous” and warned that Tory hostility to the Scottish National Party was getting in the way of sensible policy making and that
“The Scottish Conservatives need to explain what their policy is”.
What is their position on the Supreme Court being able to take cases without leave to appeal being granted by the Scottish courts and on Scottish judges being outnumbered by English judges? If that is what is said by the legal adviser to the Conservative Party in Scotland, then why on earth does the leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland not suggest that there is a real underlying issue? If that is the language that the legal adviser uses about the Conservative Party’s policy, then perhaps Annabel Goldie would be better to address that policy issue, rather than just asking the First Minister for direct answers to questions.
Mr McBride is not an adviser to the Conservative Party. He is just one of the litany of names quoted by the First Minister. What the First Minister does not get is this: judges apply the law and lawyers advise on the law. If politicians such as Mr Salmond do not like that, they should not batter judges round the head—they should change the law. [Interruption.]
Order, order.
I would be delighted. It is only a few short months ago that Paul McBride was cited by Annabel Goldie in question after question as having great wisdom. I agree. He is a Scottish lawyer of great distinction, in my opinion. However, to answer Annabel Goldie’s second point, yes, indeed, I would love this Parliament to be in a position to change the law, so that it is as it was always meant to be and our criminal cases are decided in Scotland. That is how it was always meant to be, and I want to change the law in that direction. I would love to change the law to make absolutely sure that we in this jurisdiction are in an equal position with any other jurisdiction in Europe and that we do not get into the ludicrous position of having to pass emergency legislation to avoid multimillion-pound payouts to some of the vilest prisoners in our society.
I will take a constituency question from Christine Grahame.
I refer the First Minister to the lead story in today’s Scotsman, which casts doubt on the viability of the Borders railway. As the constituency member—indeed, as the founder member of the cross-party group in the Parliament for the Campaign for Borders Rail in 1999—I ask the First Minister to give me a categorical assurance that the Government is fully committed to the reinstatement of the line, which is essential to the economy of my constituency.
Changes to groupings and consortia during procurement are not uncommon, especially for large-scale projects. The Borders railway will go ahead. I hope that the constituency member takes comfort from the second part of the story, which discussed the M74 contract and showed how a single bidder for that completion contract demonstrated the ability to deliver a bid not just on time—indeed, ahead of time—but under budget.
David Stewart—very briefly.
There are concerns in the north that the strategic defence and security review could result in the Ministry of Defence closing Fort George barracks, home to the Black Watch, and breaking the link between the Army and the Highlands that goes back to the 1700s. Will the First Minister agree to make urgent representations to Liam Fox to keep the base open, and to meet the chief executive of Historic Scotland to ensure that a survival plan is prepared to save Fort George as a premier league tourist destination?
I have done so and done so again. I signed off our final submission to the defence review this morning. As I mentioned to another constituency member last week, that did two things. First, it argued why it would be unreasonable for two air bases—66 per cent of our air base capacity—to close in Scotland. Secondly, it concentrated on the maximum redeployment of the Army from Germany back to Scotland. The Army is currently working on the principle of its coming home—of home basing. On that principle, not just Fort George but some of the other key Army bases in Scotland should be entitled to receive substantially more home-based soldiers, as the Scottish army is brought home.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00045)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland will be discussed.
The First Minister’s refusal to withdraw is embarrassing for him, for the Parliament and for Scotland. He is creating a needless division between the Government and our independent justice system. I want to give him another chance—one final chance. Will he withdraw his outrageous remarks against our senior judges and lawyers?
The answer is the same as the one that I gave to Annabel Goldie a few minutes ago.
I must say that I am not surprised, because the First Minister has a certain degree of arrogance about these remarks. No First Minister of Scotland should behave in this foolish manner. It is simply outrageous. Instead of attacking judges, is it not high time that he spent his time on something more constructive? For example, if he cannot get the basics right at Cornton Vale, how on earth will he make prisons a place for rehabilitation? If he cannot even provide every prisoner with a bed, how can he expect prisoners to get a route out of crime and to stop them being professional, lifetime offenders? Is it not the case that, after two years of inaction, Scotland’s communities are less safe because his Government will not take seriously the failings at Cornton Vale?
Willie Rennie has asked a range of questions. I am interested in his selective interpretation of language. He is a supporter of the present coalition Government. Two days ago, the Prime Minister described a Supreme Court judgment as “offensive”. I do not know whether that comes into Willie Rennie’s lexicon of unfortunate language, but the reality is that there is public and political comment on judicial decisions that is quite proper to be made. The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by statute in the Parliament.
I return to the member’s extraordinary remarks. There have been a number of improvements to Cornton Vale. The solution is to have fewer people on short sentences in prison. That policy was supported by Willie Rennie’s predecessor in the Parliament. It has successfully stabilised and, hopefully, is now reducing the Scottish prison population. There is a particular issue in the rise in the number of female prisoners, which is much greater than the rise in the number of male prisoners. I do not think that the solution to that is to embark on another prison building programme. I think that the solution is to find alternative means of punishment and sentencing. Until now, I thought that that policy was supported by the Liberal Democrats, too.
On the point about Scottish society being safer, people will note the 30-year low in recorded crime, the most important aspect of which has been the 1,000 extra police patrolling the communities and streets of Scotland. Unfortunately, although most Liberal Democrats acknowledge the 30-year low in recorded crime, they did not support the 1,000 extra police who were required to bring about that better position.
Oil and Gas Industries
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to support the oil and gas industries. (S4F-00052)
North Sea oil and gas make a huge contribution to both the Scottish and United Kingdom economies, providing jobs, investment and the majority of our fuel needs. It supports about 200,000 jobs in Scotland. This year, the Treasury expects to secure tax revenue of £13.4 billion, which is a record high in nominal terms.
The Scottish Government wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday this week, with the support of the Labour Party in Scotland, on the decision to increase the supplementary tax on North Sea oil and gas producers, with a paper analysing and highlighting the risks that are posed and suggesting solutions to safeguard the viability and continued development of the most technically challenging and mature fields in the North Sea.
I thank the First Minister for his answer.
“The Chancellor’s short term focus on squeezing the maximum amount of revenue from oil and gas is putting at risk the investment we need in order to get the most out of the North Sea ... He’s more interested in cash today than investment tomorrow.”
Those are not my words but the words of the chancellor George Osborne himself, when he was in opposition. Although many of my constituents who work in the oil and gas industry warmly welcome—
A question, Ms Watt.
—the sensible suggestions that have been put forward, does the First Minister not agree that the incident highlights why it would be far better for the taxation of the oil industry to be in the hands of an experienced former oil economist, rather than in those of a distant Government whose sole interest is to slash the budget deficit?
Yes, I will rise to that challenge. If called, I will serve.
Maureen Watt is quite right to quote George Osborne. I remember it—it was in 2007, shortly before the election of that year, if I remember correctly. George Osborne was arguing for stability in the oil tax regime in a way that reflected the challenges of marginal fields, heavy oilfields and gas fields. We reminded George Osborne of that at the meeting that was held with him about two weeks ago.
I have some anxiety about the issue, which affects about 15,000 people in Scotland. It is estimated that there will be 15,000 fewer jobs in Scotland in 10 years’ time than there would be if these changes had not been proposed in the manner that they were. I have gratefully accepted the support of the Labour Party in Scotland on the issue, as has been said to the chancellor in our submission.
Above all, three detailed points have been advanced for improving jobs prospects in Scotland. I hope that the whole Parliament recognises the importance of the industry in our economy, and the crucial importance of 15,000 jobs. Whatever difficulties there are with the Liberal-Tory coalition, I hope that the Scottish Parliament can put the interests of Scottish workers at a paramount level and support those three initiatives to bring stability and to ensure that investment in the North Sea is not interrupted.
Does the First Minister recognise the further concern in the oil and gas industry regarding the chancellor’s proposals to tax helicopter journeys to and from work in the North Sea on the same basis as journeys by luxury business jets? Does he support the representations that were made this week on the matter by business and local government in the north-east? If he agrees with those representations, what action will he take to support them?
Yes, I agree with them. I understand that that proposal is in the process of being reinterpreted, which I hope represents progress. However, is this not another argument for air passenger duty being devolved to this Parliament? Here, we would recognise the importance of helicopter flights to and from North Sea installations, would we not?
If members keep their questions short and the First Minister keeps his answers short, we will get through all the questions and—I hope—include everyone who wants to ask a question.
Fuel Poverty Budget
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will review its changes to the fuel poverty budget in light of the announcement of price increases by Scottish Power. (S4F-00051)
The issue of price increases is very serious. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth met the chief executive officer of Scottish Power energy wholesale and retail on Tuesday and reiterated the Scottish Government’s concern about the proposed price rises.
Scottish Government programmes to improve energy efficiency and address fuel poverty for Scotland’s households through advice and new installations and heating systems will be supported by a budget of £48 million this year. The equivalent spend in 2006-07 on installation of central heating was £45.8 million.
Does the First Minister agree that the most substantial contribution that energy companies can make to tackling fuel poverty is through exercising restraint on prices, particularly given that the increases hit poorest households the hardest? Given the reduction in fuel poverty spending in the Scottish Government’s most recent budget, does he agree that the next budget should include appropriate investment in tackling fuel poverty and making more homes energy efficient?
I will say two things. I just mentioned the figures, which indicate that, even in these incredibly pressing times, the budget is higher than the one that we inherited in 2006-07. Also, the member should know that, in his talks with Scottish Power, the finance secretary identified £10 million of unspent expenditure through the Scottish Power scheme, which we can now discuss with our local authority partners, to see how it can be deployed to help people further with energy efficiency.
I know that Richard Baker would be the first to acknowledge that Brenda Boardman, a fellow of the University of Oxford, who established the definition of fuel poverty, said of the Scottish energy assistance package:
“This is the best UK exemplar in terms of providing both a comprehensive approach ... and to linking ... assistance to the energy inefficiency of the home.”
I am concerned that the price rise will add to the 50 per cent of senior citizens in Inverclyde who already live in fuel poverty. Does the First Minister agree that the estimated extra £20 million in VAT receipts would be far better spent on tackling fuel poverty in Inverclyde and throughout Scotland, as opposed to topping up the Treasury’s coffers?
Yes, I do. John Swinney identified £10 million of expenditure. He has also referred the matter to the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets, the energy regulator.
It is true that, even at 5 per cent, the additional revenue from the energy price increases, if they were repeated across the sector, which unfortunately seems likely to be a trend, would bring in another £20 million to the Exchequer. At the very least, the additional VAT as a result of the price rises that energy companies are proposing should be devoted to further bolstering the energy efficiency and fuel poverty programmes in Scotland and throughout these islands.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the findings of the global entrepreneurship monitor’s report for Scotland 2010. (S4F-00044)
The GEM report is a useful contribution to our understanding of individuals’ entrepreneurship ambitions and perceptions about starting a business in Scotland, but it is, of course, a survey of aspirations. On the statistics, I know that Gavin Brown will recognise that, pre-recession, there was a higher increase in new business registrations in Scotland and that, although there has been a decline since the recession, the decline in registrations in Scotland has been less than the decline across the United Kingdom as a whole.
Some Governments like to gloss over bad news more than others do—and then there is the Scottish Government. The GEM report showed that we have a low rate of entrepreneurial activity. Our rate is significantly lower than the rate in England, lower than the rate in Wales and lower even than the rate in the arc of prosperity.
At the weekend, five enterprise groups called for a national entrepreneurial action plan. Will the First Minister pledge to deliver that plan and will he pledge that it should be directed by a respected business leader?
There were some good ideas in the suggestions that were made by the business organisations, and we will certainly be giving them the closest examination.
I have to say that for a supporter of the Conservative-Liberal coalition in Westminster to talk about glossing over bad news is quite remarkable. I accept that one swallow does not make a summer and one set of statistics does not make a recovery; we need a run of statistics, such as the six-month fall in unemployment in Scotland, which will be welcomed across the chamber. Further, Gavin Brown might have noted in the statistics that were published yesterday that self-employment in Scotland stood at 388,000, which is a 6 per cent rise on this time last year. Those figures are for only one quarter but, nevertheless, they are a firm indication of a significant and positive trend with regard to self-employment in Scotland.
12:30 Meeting suspended.