First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2708)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
The First Minister has a woeful record on building consensus, but yesterday he managed it: he united all the Opposition parties in the chamber in agreement—agreement that his budget is a cynical, short-term stop-gap measure, made in a vain attempt to get re-elected. Everyone knows that he put the short-term interest of his party before the long-term interest of his country. Especially at a time such as this, is that not an abdication of his responsibility as First Minister?
I will refresh Iain Gray’s memory with regard to the idea that this is the first time that Labour has been unified with the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. As I remember, there was unity on the Edinburgh trams project between the Labour Party, the Liberals and the Conservatives. I am surprised that Iain Gray, as the former minister who announced the trams project, cannot remember that.
The budget that was presented yesterday tackled the huge issue that faces this country, which is the thirteen hundred million pound cutback in the public finance that is available to Scotland this coming year. That is the largest decline in public expenditure not just in the history of devolution but in the history of public spending. That is what Mr Swinney faced, and that is what he faced down. That is why we have taken the tough decisions that are required, and that is why this Government will be re-elected next May.
Mr Swinney said yesterday that the budget was
“more than a one-year challenge”.—[Official Report, Wednesday 17 November 2010; c 30461.].
However, he then immediately failed his own test. Alex Neil admitted on television—I was standing right beside him—that, if the Scottish National Party gets past the election, it will bring out the three-year budget then. What is the First Minister hiding? What happens in years 2 and 3 of his spending plans that he will not tell us about now?
It is quite extraordinary—Andy Kerr used that line yesterday. That point is covered in the budget document. Andy Kerr could argue that he had only an hour or two to read it yesterday, but Iain Gray has had 24 hours to read it. As the budget document says, Campbell Christie and his commission—[Interruption.]
Order.
The Christie commission will examine structural change in Scottish public services and will present a report in order to take forward the Government’s plans for Scotland. [Interruption.] I can see members on the Labour benches looking desperately. They have all had 24 hours. [Interruption.]
Order.
Am I meant to assume that they cannot find the right section in the budget document? Do I need to draw it to their attention?
John Swinney has faced the biggest ever decline in Scottish public spending, and he has taken the decisions that are required to face up to it. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are united on something else, too: they have no alternative future for Scotland, except a generation of cutbacks led by the Westminster Government.
Let us remember that, while Labour condemns the Con-Dem coalition, two thirds of the cutbacks were promised by Alistair Darling in a regime that was to be deeper and tougher than under Margaret Thatcher. We are not only facing down the immediate challenge; we are saying to Scotland, “Give us the economic power to grow the economy and take us into a better future.”
I have indeed read the budget document, and not even it was as tedious as Alex Salmond’s answers. It is full of commissions, reviews, contracts and concordats, but it has no answers in it. All budgets—
What about your answers, mate?
Order!
Members: What are your answers?
Order! Sit down, please, Mr Gray.
I understand the political situation in the chamber, and it is entirely understandable that members are somewhat overexcited. However, I cannot tolerate the Presiding Officer not getting order when he or she asks for it. That situation cannot remain. I ask members that, when I ask for order, it is given.
All budgets—especially the one that we have been discussing—are about priorities. Let us look at the First Minister’s priorities. We have obtained the information that, last year, as Scotland tried to recover from recession, he spent £0.5 million on the 16 members of staff in his speech-writing unit. I have heard his speeches. Can we have our money back, please?
It is well known that this Government’s administration costs for special advisers are dramatically lower than they were in the Administration that Iain Gray was a member of and in the previous Administration.
Let us talk about the choices that Scotland faces. Yesterday, we announced a difficult policy of pay restraint in the public sector because we believe that it is right to maintain and save jobs in Scotland. That is not easy to do; it is tough. Iain Gray has said that he supports that policy. On 29 October, he said to the BBC:
“We have to have significant pay restraint, probably close to, or at, a pay freeze”.
He added:
“Certainly over a couple of years, maybe two or three years.”
Fine. However, yesterday, I saw him outside the Parliament demonstrating beside a banner that demanded no pay freeze. This morning, I heard him on the radio. He was asked whether he supports pay restraint. He replied that he does: he coughed, he said, “Excuse me,” and he said that he does support it and that he has said that before. If he supports pay restraint to save jobs, what was he doing yesterday? He is the first Opposition leader in history to hold a demonstration against his own policy.
I will stand alongside workers who are trying to save their jobs any day of the week. [Applause.]
Order.
The only job that the First Minister is really trying to save is his own. He should start to do that job. He has no idea about reform of the teaching profession. Someone else can sort that out in June. He has no idea about public service reform. Someone else can sort it out in June. He has no idea about higher education funding. Someone else can sort it out in August. The First Minister has no ideas and no answers, and there is no leadership from him. He used to fancy himself as a Celtic lion. Does not the budget show that he is just a cowardly lion instead?
Iain Gray was not outside demonstrating for jobs yesterday; he was out demonstrating beside a banner that demanded no pay freeze. That is diametrically opposed to his policy. However, we should not be too surprised. Where does he stand on the other choices that Scotland faces? The Government has proposed a social contract that would say to people that we have made valuable gains in freezing the council tax and removing prescription charges in return for pay restraint. Where does Iain Gray stand on that? He has changed his mind about the council tax three times. First, he said that it was to rise. Then, in a BBC interview, he said that it was not to rise. Then, at his conference, he said that it was to rise, but that he was going to cap it. Rather than tell me what we should do over the next four years, why does he not make up his mind about what his policy is for next year?
John Swinney has taken the big decisions and faced up to the biggest decline in public spending in the history of devolution. He has put forward tough but fair policies to maintain jobs and protect workers in Scotland. Above all, like all Scottish National Party members, he has a vision of getting control over Scotland’s economy to grow our way, as opposed to taking the cut, cut, cut approach of Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2709)
I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.
Scottish Conservative plans would give more money to Scottish universities and greater support to the students who are most in need. We now know that Alex Salmond will give less money to our universities and less support to the students who are most in need. Will he tell me whether that is a five-month plan, a one-year plan or his long-term solution?
Yesterday’s settlement for higher education—and many other aspects of education—was widely welcomed. The reason why student leaders and others across higher education welcomed it is that they have been glancing south of the border to the tender mercies of the Con-Dem coalition as far as higher education in England is concerned. I remind Annabel Goldie that higher education teaching budgets in England are to be cut by 40 per cent over the course of the comprehensive spending review. That is why the announcement yesterday that our higher education institutions—universities and colleges—had agreed to maintain student numbers on the settlement that John Swinney was able to give them was so welcome.
If Annabel Goldie thinks about that for a second, will she accept that being able to maintain student numbers in Scotland, against what is happening to teaching budgets south of the border, is a considerable achievement? Will she also accept that we have to find a distinctively Scottish solution that does not put the entire burden of paying for higher education on future generations of students? That would not be fair, equitable or in the Scottish tradition of education.
The First Minister does not want to be reminded of the facts, but they are that the Scottish National Party Government is cutting funding to our universities and support for those students who are most in need.
Before the First Minister gets carried away with his rhetoric about the reaction of universities, I point out that the convener of Universities Scotland, Professor Bernard King, is damning. He said today:
“universities have agreed to take on a significant number of students at a fraction of the real cost of teaching them. This is borne out of extreme circumstances for one year only and is not a sustainable position for universities to be in.”
I repeat to the First Minister that Conservative plans are ready. They are for the long term, and they will—[Interruption.]
Order.
They will put more money into the sector and give greater support to those students who are most in need.
What about the SNP? How many more reviews, task groups, working groups, green papers and acres of long grass does the First Minister need before he delivers a real, lasting solution?
As I remember, it was Annabel Goldie’s party that wanted the review of higher education funding with which we are proceeding at present. I am sure that her party will continue to make constructive contributions, despite the fact that unanimous Scottish opinion rejects the policy that it is imposing on students south of the border.
Annabel Goldie should really have completed the quotation from Bernard King. I have it in front of me:
“It’s clear from this settlement that the Scottish Government has sought to protect universities from deeper and more damaging cuts.”
What are the
“deeper and more damaging cuts”
to which Bernard King refers? They are the cuts of the Conservative Government on higher education south of the border.
Professor Anton Muscatelli, the principal of the University of Glasgow and somebody Annabel Goldie has quoted in her many Latin lessons to me, said:
“We are pleased that the Scottish Government has recognised the importance of universities at a time of major demands on the public finances. We particularly welcome the ring-fencing of research funding and widening access funding in cash terms, which will help to keep our Universities’ research competitive with other UK institutions.”
There is recognition across the sector that this Government is fighting for the future of higher education in Scotland. We shall not go down the road pursued by the Conservative party south of the border.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2710)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
On Sunday, the Scottish National Party in Glasgow criticised the city’s council for having the wrong priorities. Mr Salmond’s party said that it was simply unacceptable that the council was increasing wages for those earning more than £80,000 a year. It said that that was financial incompetence. Does the First Minister agree with all that?
I agree with what John Swinney set out in yesterday’s budget: substantial efficiencies on higher salaries across the public sector in Scotland.
I also agree with the serious attempt that the Government is making—and has been making throughout our term in office—to procure better efficiencies across the public sector in a way that does not break contracts or have us up before employment tribunals or in the European courts, which would certainly have been our destination if we had listened to the advice of Tavish Scott and the Liberal Democrats.
The First Minister needs to make sure that what is right for Glasgow on Sunday is good for the rest of the country on Thursday. I have here figures that show that, across Scotland in the past year, public bodies have taken on hundreds of new people who are paid more than £80,000 a year. The total increase in high pay in just one year is £33 million. I want a cut in the top pay in the public sector, to save money and to invest in jobs. Last January, I agreed with the First Minister when he said
“those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden”.—[Official Report, 21 January 2010; c 23007.]
That was okay for Glasgow on Sunday; is it right for the rest of his Government now?
I refer Tavish Scott to what John Swinney said yesterday:
“The costs of the senior civil service will fall by at least 10 per cent by the end of 2011-12 and by 25 per cent by 2014-15. The Government is now operating the presumption that, when a non-departmental public body’s chief executive resigns or retires, their replacement will start on a salary that is at least 10 per cent lower than that of the person whom they replace.
We are further reducing the number of chief executives who have access to bonuses from the level that we inherited in 2007. As I said, we will suspend bonus payments in 2011-12. We are working to reduce the number of board members of public bodies ...
We are committed to cutting the number of senior managers in NHS Scotland by 25 per cent over the life of the next Parliament.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2010; c 30463-64.]
Presiding Officer—[Interruption.] I hear Mr Rumbles, from a sedentary position, ask how we know that we can do that. We know that we can do it because we have managed to hit, match or exceed every efficiency target that we have set in the past three years, in stark contrast to the performance of the previous Administration.
Asylum Seekers (Accommodation)
4. To ask the First Minister what the impact on local communities across Scotland will be of the decision by the United Kingdom Border Agency to cancel its contract with Glasgow City Council. (S3F-2711)
Both Glasgow City Council and the city of Glasgow have a positive record of welcoming and working with asylum-seeking families. The Scottish Government has no jurisdiction in matters between the UKBA and Glasgow City Council. Nevertheless, the Parliament and the people of Scotland should not lose sight of the fact that the needs of the 1,300 asylum seekers—vulnerable people who have often been through very traumatic experiences—must be foremost in all considerations of what must be done next. All asylum seekers who are dispersed to Scotland must be treated fairly and humanely, and, while they are in Scotland, they must be welcomed and supported in local communities. I understand that many of them are visiting Parliament today, and I hope that that offer is made to them on a cross-party basis.
I, too, welcome the Glasgow asylum seekers and their friends who are in the public gallery and those who are watching in the public area.
I ask the First Minister to do two things. First, will he condemn the sickening, disgraceful letter that many asylum seekers received last week, telling them that they would have just three to five days’ notice to pack no more than two suitcases and move to a location somewhere in Scotland? Secondly, will he make the strongest representation possible to the Home Office, telling it that the UKBA must get round the table again with Glasgow City Council to ensure that the city whose Government, whose council and whose ordinary people—many of whom are in the public gallery today—have invested so much in providing the particular support that is needed by those who seek refuge is able to continue to provide that support?
As Anne McLaughlin knows, the matter is not within the Scottish Government’s devolved competence. However, that does not mean that we have not acted. Scottish Government funds have been used in projects to improve the lives of asylum seekers and refugees, such as the Bridges Programmes in Glasgow, which helps refugees to overcome barriers to employment, and the Maryhill Integration Network, which provides language classes and activities to encourage integration.
I condemn in the strongest possible terms the nature of the letter that the asylum seekers received. I have constantly made it clear that asylum seekers should be welcomed and treated with respect and dignity in Scotland. I therefore share the concerns about the letter, which shows a lack of sensitivity and respect. It would be totally inappropriate in any circumstances, but it is reprehensible when dealing with vulnerable people. I will make those views, which I hope are shared by the whole Parliament, known to the Home Secretary, and I will make it clear that negotiations between the UKBA and Glasgow City Council should be reopened immediately.
I welcome and agree with the First Minister’s comments about the role that Glasgow citizens and Glasgow City Council have played in their long-standing support for asylum seekers.
The First Minister may be aware that young people from Lourdes secondary school in my constituency are at the Parliament today to highlight the impact of the issuing of those awful letters on individual school students and the school community. We know about the work that has been done on the matter by Glasgow MPs and the Scottish Affairs Committee and their broad approach to it, which the First Minister mentioned. Will he consider how he and his education minister might intervene in relation to their responsibilities for the young people whose schooling is being disrupted and for whom the actions that are being taken at UK level have huge personal, social and educational consequences?
As the member knows, on a number of occasions in the past, on education and other grounds related to our devolved activities, we have intervened to try to secure the position of asylum seekers, and we will be delighted to do so again, in the hope of securing a better position for them.
I welcome the tone and the nature of these exchanges. It must be of encouragement to people in their extremity to see a Parliament that is united in seeking to defend the interests of vulnerable people.
Does the First Minister share my view that the priority now must be to retain asylum seekers in their current homes and to keep their children in their current schools? Regardless of the management arrangements that are contracted for by the UKBA, stability and security are vital for such people, many of whom, as the First Minister touched on, have gone through horrendous experiences at the hands of oppressive regimes abroad.
Do the protocols regarding the treatment of asylum seekers that were arrived at with such great difficulty between successive Scottish Governments and the most recent UK Government give the Scottish Government the opportunity to discuss practical solutions to the issues at hand with the Border Agency and, indeed, the UK Government?
I must confess that I have never found the UK Border Agency to be among the foremost advocates of the respect agenda between Westminster and Scotland. Nonetheless, given that the important matter here is the treatment of people who are in a vulnerable situation, we will take up Robert Brown’s suggestion and will seek to use the protocols to defend their position.
Coal-fired Power
5. To ask the First Minister to what extent new coal-fired power generation will support the Scottish Government’s plans for a low-carbon economy. (S3F-2721)
Just this week, we issued a draft electricity generation policy statement that demonstrates that Scotland can generate 80 per cent of its electricity demand from renewables, supported by thermal generation with carbon capture and storage.
By progressively fitting full CCS to existing and new thermal plants, maintaining a minimum thermal capacity of above 2.5GW and making grid improvements over the next decade, we can secure electricity supply and ensure decarbonisation by 2030. As a result, we will be able to export large amounts of electricity from Scotland.
“A Low Carbon Economic Strategy For Scotland”, which was published on Monday, shows that between 52,000 and 95,000 new job opportunities can be created in the energy sector by 2020, with 10,000 of those jobs coming from CCS development.
Carbon capture does, indeed, have significant potential, but does the First Minister recall that, in the national planning framework, his Government offered support for new base-load electricity generating capacity at Hunterston, but only if it was fuelled by coal, and without requiring that technology to capture all its carbon emissions should be in place first? In the context of the plans and proposals for a low-carbon economy that he has described, will he reconsider his insistence that new generating capacity at Hunterston should be fuelled by coal?
I point out that, as the member well knows, I cannot comment on a live planning application.
I am somewhat surprised by the member’s comments, because the framework that we put forward for carbon capture in Scotland was identical to the framework that was put forward by one Ed Miliband when he was the secretary of state at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I do not want to see the future career of the member damaged in any way, but it is a bit rich of him to condemn the Scottish Government for putting forward a framework for carbon capture that is identical to the one pursued by the new leader of the Labour Party.
The First Minister will be aware that the Labour-Tory coalition that runs Inverclyde Council, which borders North Ayrshire, has recently decided not to object to the Hunterston coal-fired power station application; indeed, it is in favour of it. Does he agree that that shows the hollowness and blatant opportunism of Labour’s position in claiming to oppose an unwanted and unnecessary development while its elected representatives actively support it?
I must be careful not to express any view on a planning application, so, therefore, I will not. However, until Kenny Gibson asked his question, I thought that Lewis Macdonald was at variance only with the leader of the Labour Party. Now, however, I realise that he is also at variance with Labour’s local representatives. That is a remarkable balancing act that, I am sure, only Lewis Macdonald can achieve.
Last week, in this chamber, the Scottish Government’s energy policy was torn apart by an industry expert, Rupert Soames, in a thoughtful speech. [Laughter.] Scottish National Party members may laugh, but Mr Swinney, who was there, looks rather sheepish and uncomfortable right now—
Sheepish? Far from it!
Order, Mr Swinney.
—and the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism is sitting right at the back of the chamber, out of the way.
Does the Scottish Government intend to reflect on that speech and take action, or will it ignore the warnings of a highly respected industry expert?
I would never ignore the warnings of highly respected industry experts, but I have taken the precaution of reading Rupert Soames’s speech, a copy of which I have before me. I can see why I found some of its contents surprising, because, basically, it is all about United Kingdom energy policy. It is only in the second last paragraph that he refers to Scotland, when he says that we have to take account of what is happening in England and Wales.
The speech surprised me for a few reasons. First, Rupert Soames seemed to suggest that it is impossible to generate more than 10 per cent of a country’s electricity from wind generation, but we in Scotland already do that—we are doing that right now, not in 10 years’ time. He warned of the retirement of oil-fired power generation. We do not have any of that in Scotland, so we can probably relax in that regard.
Rupert Soames also warned that people were setting long-term targets that were meaningless. If I remember correctly—in fact, I do remember correctly—our first target for renewable generation is to achieve a situation in which 31 per cent of Scotland’s demand is supplied by renewable generation by next year. We are going to go through that quite substantially. How do I know that? Because reaching that target depends only on the facilities that are already in production, the ones that have been licensed and the ones that are under construction.
Having read Mr Soames’s remarks, I think that there is some evidence to back up his criticisms of policy in London. The member would be foolish not to take account of the different perspective and policies of the Scottish Government, which has licensed and approved 36 major renewables applications in the past three years.
Fishing Quotas 2011
6. To ask the First Minister what effect the European Commission’s 2011 fishing quota proposals will have on Scotland’s fishing industry if they are ratified. (S3F-2724)
Fishing is a vital Scottish industry and a priority for the Scottish Government. We will be working hard with the industry and other stakeholders to secure the best deal possible at the December talks.
However, the Commission’s proposals as they stand are unacceptable and could cost the industry £7 million next year. That is why we have provided it with additional scientific information that we hope that it will take on board. We will also be pushing for a further development of our catch quota proposals, which could turn that £7 million loss into a £16 million addition for the industry.
I hope that the member agrees that the fundamental problem remains that the common fisheries policy is a broken and discredited system and that, as we read in the interim report of the inquiry into future fisheries management that was published last week, Scotland is “disadvantaged” by having to rely on Westminster in negotiations in Brussels.
The First Minister will be aware of the extremely precarious position in which many parts of our fishing industry, particularly the white-fish fleet, find themselves.
With the on-going European Union-Norway talks and the Commission’s initial quota proposals threatening a cut in fishing opportunities of between 15 and 20 per cent and a cut in fishing effort of between 15 and 30 per cent, what reassurances can the First Minister provide that any deal that is struck in Brussels next month will not result in the bankruptcy of swathes of our white-fish fleet? In relation to the catch quota proposals that he referred to, will he ensure that, as work is done to deal with the economic and environmental scandal of discards, the industry will be fully involved at every stage so that a difficult situation is not made immeasurably worse?
The industry will be—and is—fully involved in the catch quota initiative. For members who are not from fishing constituencies, I explain that we are putting forward the argument that if we have quotas that are judged and allocated on what is actually caught and landed—so that everything that is caught is landed—we can end the criminal misuse of resources that discards represent.
There is some indication from the European Commission, given what it has allowed Denmark in the Baltic fishery, that it may be amenable to the proposals that we are putting forward, which are backed up by the sea trials that have taken place in the past year.
Liam McArthur will know that although we still face an extremely difficult position in terms of the scientific evidence on west coast stocks, some 40 per cent of the North Sea fishery has now been certified as environmentally sustainable. We have reached that position because of the substantial conservation efforts of Scottish—and, to be fair, Norwegian—fishermen during the past few years. I therefore think that it behoves the European Commission to recognise that level of sacrifice by accepting our catch quota initiative in order to protect the viability of the Scottish fleet.
12:31
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
14:15
On resuming—