Engagements
We now move to First Minister’s question time. Question 1 is from Kezia Dugdale. [Applause.]
1.
I take this opportunity to wish the Presiding Officer and all members a merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous new year.
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02483)
I congratulate Kezia Dugdale on her election as deputy leader of Scottish Labour. I warmly welcome her to her place and I, too, wish everybody a very merry Christmas.
On a more sombre note, at the end of a week in which we have witnessed horrific acts of terror around the world, I take the opportunity—I am sure on behalf of all of us—to send condolences to the people of Australia and, of course, the people of Pakistan. Our thoughts are very much with them at this time.
Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
I associate myself with the First Minister’s remarks and think that all members would agree with them. Our condolences go to the people of Pakistan and all those here in Scotland who have family there and are feeling the pain at this time.
There is a crisis in the oil industry. The unions and the companies say so. The Wood Group, Shell, BP and Petrofac are all cutting wages. A thousand jobs have gone and thousands more are on the line. What is the Scottish Government going to do?
I thank Kezia Dugdale for raising an issue that is very important and is of great concern to the people who work in our oil and gas industry. I will answer the question briefly, in two parts.
First, in terms of the Scottish Government’s responsibilities, we will continue to do what we are doing to support innovation—for example, through our £10 million funding for the Oil and Gas Innovation Centre. We will continue to support skills in the industry and have invested an additional £6.5 million in that.
We have, of course, published the energy skills investment plan, and we will look to refresh it and ensure that it is fit for purpose. We will also continue to ring fence 500 modern apprenticeships for the energy sector in each year of the current session of Parliament.
The second part of my answer—I hope that we can achieve some unity in the chamber on this—is that we will support the industry in its calls to the United Kingdom Government for more action. I will highlight three things that it is calling for. It wants bolder action on reducing the supplementary charge, urgent action on the proposed new investment allowance, and support for exploration. That is what the industry wants, and I hope that we can all get behind it.
The First Minister will have Labour’s support when she goes to the UK Government with her calls, but she must be reminded that she has at least six responsibilities to the oil and gas industry in Scotland. She mentioned skills and innovation, but she also has responsibility for onshore business taxes, support in finding new markets, supporting infrastructure and diversifying the industry. Therefore, the same old answers about looking to Westminster for solutions just do not stack up.
The industry is one of Scotland’s key industries. Yesterday, Jake Molloy of the RMT said:
“We’re on the brink of meltdown.”
Robin Allan of Premier Oil said that the North Sea oil industry is “close to collapse”. Of course the UK Government should respond quickly, but the Scottish Government has to work with unions and the industry to find ways to maintain employment levels right now. What assurances can the First Minister give oil workers and their families about their jobs? Some 300,000 jobs across Scotland and the UK are reliant on the industry. What security do they have this Christmas from the Government?
I hope that the words that we have been hearing from Kezia Dugdale and her colleagues in recent days about a new consensual approach can survive beyond her first First Minister’s questions. [Interruption.]
Order.
I have said at every FMQs that I am keen to work across party boundaries. Kezia Dugdale is correct that this is an important issue. She asked specifically about actions that we will take and I gave her some of the specifics. We will continue to support the industry in every way that we can. I will meet Malcolm Webb of Oil & Gas UK on 14 January. Some of what I called on the UK Government to do did not come simply from the Scottish Government or the Scottish National Party—I cited some things from a letter to me from Oil & Gas UK. I should say that, in that same letter, Oil & Gas UK talks about its good relationship with ministers in the Scottish Government. That good relationship and the determination to support the industry will continue strongly in my time as First Minister.
In the interests of the consensus that I am genuinely keen to build, if there are specific proposals that any other party wants to bring forward, it should do so, but it should make them specific so that we can give them the serious consideration that we would want to give.
The First Minister mentioned Oil & Gas UK, which told her that production and prices were falling, yet she persisted with her predictions on oil prices. [Interruption.]
Order.
This week, oil dropped to below $60 a barrel. In today’s papers, John Swinney says that it will be back up to $110 a barrel by next year, while Professor Ronald MacDonald says that a fall to $40 is “not ... unreasonable”. Just imagine for a second that the world-leading economist Ronald MacDonald knows more about the issue than John Swinney does. That fall would be catastrophic for the North Sea oil industry.
Here we go. Same old, same old.
Mr Swinney!
Let us look to the future. Has the Scottish Government done an assessment of the long-term impact of the falling oil price and, if so, will it be published?
We will continue to work with the industry and to do the work that is required to support it. [Interruption.]
Order! Ms Marra!
Probably not a week goes by in which Fergus Ewing does not meet companies that are active in the North Sea oil and gas sector. Perhaps fairly early in Kezia Dugdale’s tenure as deputy leader of Scottish Labour, she will also take time to meet those companies.
I have.
I am glad to hear it. In that case, we can try to build some consensus on the things that they want us to do.
On the comments about John Swinney and oil experts, I point out to Kezia Dugdale that the price of $110 a barrel comes from the recently published “World Oil Outlook” by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which projects a nominal price of $110 until the year 2020. That is where the prediction comes from. [Interruption.]
Order.
I repeat the point that, in the weeks, months and perhaps years to come, we can, and I am pretty sure we will, have vigorous political debates across the chamber about this and other issues, but I thought that Kezia Dugdale started in the right tone today when she rightly put the focus on jobs and the future of an important industry. I want to work with that industry and with members across the chamber—if they are willing to support the industry. I invite others to be part of that effort.
This is the First Minister who is so in touch with the oil industry that she was in Shetland four months ago promising a second oil boom. Four days ago, her energy minister was in Aberdeen rightly pleading with oil companies not to pay off their workers this Christmas. Two weeks ago, I was in Aberdeen talking to the ASET International Oil & Gas Training Academy, which is desperate for support from the Government in order to invest in skills and ensure that if the oil price rises again we will still have the people to make the most of that.
Is it not the truth that the Scottish Government just did not see this crisis coming, because it believed its own wishful thinking about oil prices? Surely we cannot have a First Minister who is so unprepared and unsighted on such a key industry. Will she initiate an inquiry into why her Government was so wrong in the past, so that we can get this right in the future? [Interruption.]
Order.
There are tens of thousands of jobs on the line. The First Minister needs to be able to tell the Scottish public why she got it so wrong in the past, so that she can get it right in the future, does she not?
I think that it was at least two years ago that we re-established the energy skills academy, so determined were we to support skills in the sector. In my—I think—first answer to Kezia Dugdale, I outlined the support that we are giving for skills development in the sector. The industry will get the support that it needs from the Scottish Government for skills development, as it will do for innovation.
Let me come back to what I think is the central issue. I will keep trying to find this note of consensus. The industry wants us to unite to call on the UK Government to accelerate action around the new investment allowance and it wants us to unite to call on the UK Government to increase support for exploration. I think that we should also call on the UK Government to take more action around reducing the supplementary charge. A couple of weeks ago, Danny Alexander talked about reducing it from 32 per cent to 30 per cent, which is welcome. What he did not talk quite so much about was the fact that it was, in the first place, he who increased it from 20 per cent to 32 per cent.
Let us come together to call for the sensible action that the people in the industry want. Those whose jobs are under threat right now will want to see us coming together in that way, and not having a party-political ding-dong.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I add the thoughts and prayers of me and my party for those who have been affected by the horrific events in Australia and Pakistan. I know that there are people in Scotland who have been affected, too. They are in all our thoughts.
I welcome Labour’s new deputy leader and congratulate her on her election.
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02481)
No plans in the immediate future.
When he unveiled his plans to reform stamp duty on house buying in October, John Swinney said that he did not intend to take more money from people than is currently collected. His exact words were:
“I have decided that the taxes raised should be revenue neutral, raising no more or less than the taxes that they replace.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2014; c 39.]
Since then, stamp duty rates have been cut by £800 million across the United Kingdom and by £80 million in Scotland. People buying houses now are getting a better deal. However, the Scottish National Party’s position is to take that deal away. That is, in fact, an £80 million tax grab on Scotland’s home owners. [Interruption.]
Order.
Two months ago, the SNP Government said clearly that property taxes should raise no more or less than the taxes that they replace. Has the First Minister changed her mind?
I have looked at the proposals that Ruth Davidson and her party put forward today. When we talked about the issue a couple of weeks ago, I invited her to make proposals, which I said that I would consider carefully. I will keep that promise, and I and the Deputy First Minister will consider the proposals carefully.
In the press release on the proposals, Ruth Davidson said that they would cost £90 million and that they are affordable because of a benefit to the Scottish Government budget. I am not quite clear how she can arrive at that conclusion, because we have not got to a final agreement on the block grant adjustment, and the direction of travel that we think that we are headed in would not take us anywhere near £90 million.
When we get the final—I stress the word “final”—agreement on the block grant adjustment, we will be able to assess whether our proposals are revenue neutral, revenue positive or revenue negative. At that point, we will be able to consider further proposals of our own, if we want to make any, and further proposals from the Conservative Party.
That is the spirit in which I approach the issue—it is the spirit of the consensus that I have offered. To be fair to Ruth Davidson, she has brought forward specific proposals, which the Government will consider seriously.
I welcome the First Minister’s conversion to the cause. I am glad that she will consider our proposals, but I will press my case. There are some simple facts to consider. From midnight on 3 December, thanks to the UK Government, home owners in Scotland are paying £80 million less in tax. The proposals published by the Scottish Government this morning are fully costed—
We had nothing to do with it.
I am sorry; John Swinney is correct to point out that the proposals were published by the Scottish Conservatives, but I hope that the Scottish Government will soon adopt them, given that the First Minister is so consensual.
The proposals are fully costed not just from the £80 million tax cut that will be passed on but from all the other unallocated Barnett consequentials from the 2014 autumn statement. I am glad that the First Minister will consider our proposals, because they will give a tax cut to ordinary people who want to get on the property ladder and to ordinary people who want to climb the property ladder and, at the lower end, they will take more people out of tax altogether. In comparison with the SNP plans, our proposals constitute a better deal for every single homebuyer.
As she did last week, the week before that and the week before that, the First Minister claims that she wants to be consensual. So far, she has not actually moved on any issue. We have shown how it can be done, so I urge her to work with me to make sure that it is done and that we give homebuyers an early Christmas present. When can we meet to make our proposals become reality?
For the avoidance of doubt, I say that my approach to consensus does not extend as far as allowing the Scottish Conservatives to call themselves the Scottish Government. I have to draw a line in the sand there. I know that Ruth Davidson likes lines in the sand, so I will draw that one firmly.
The finance secretary has already offered to meet Gavin Brown to discuss the proposals and that offer stands. It is worth reminding members that, under our proposals in comparison with the UK Government’s proposals, 80 per cent of transactions would leave people better off or no worse off, and 5,000 more people would be lifted out of paying tax altogether—they would pay nothing.
I have said that I will consider the Conservatives’ proposals, but I will consider one aspect of them very carefully. Under the proposals that Ruth Davidson has made today, the 80 per cent of people who buy houses that cost less than £250,000 would be £100 better off than they would be under our proposals. However, the 2 per cent of people who buy houses that cost more than £500,000 would be £12,600 better off. I will want to consider simply whether that is fair.
What does the First Minister think of the Supreme Court judgment on the two midwives and their participation in abortion? Where does that leave individual workers’ rights in relation to conscientious objection?
Yesterday’s ruling confirmed that midwives’ right to conscientious objection to taking part in abortion remains protected. In her opinion, Lady Hale clarified that midwives could not be compelled to participate in
“actually performing the tasks involved in the course of treatment.”
Is the First Minister aware that a number of Scottish businesses, including some in my constituency, have difficulty in trading with Cuba because of the United States blockade? Will she join me in welcoming President Obama’s historic announcement yesterday of moves to normalise diplomatic and economic ties with Cuba, which included the immediate release of the remaining three members of the so-called Miami five?
I very much welcome President Obama’s announcement about normalising relations between the United States and Cuba. I will go further and say that, if that assists Scottish businesses in increasing their exports, that is very much to be welcomed.
Cabinet (Meetings)
I associate myself with the remarks about the suffering in Pakistan and Australia, and I welcome Kezia Dugdale to her position.
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02478)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
Yesterday we learned from the Public Audit Committee that the person appointed by ministers to head up Revenue Scotland has no accounting or taxation qualifications. Was that really a wise appointment?
The director general of finance in the Scottish Government is a chartered accountant, so that is the first part of my answer to Willie Rennie. In addition, I read some comments that were issued by Willie Rennie at the weekend criticising the head of Revenue Scotland, who in that context was not able to answer back. However, yesterday, when she was before the committee and would have been able to answer directly the points that Willie Rennie wanted to put to her, he did not bother turning up to put those points directly to her. I have to say that, in the relationship between politicians and civil servants, that was rather a poor show.
When the head of Revenue Scotland was asked questions by Tavish Scott yesterday at the Public Audit Committee, she soundly failed to answer any question at all. Yesterday, Caroline Gardner stood by her report. She said that there was absolutely clear evidence. I am surprised that the First Minister continues to stand by this position.
Ministers boasted that Revenue Scotland would be the most efficient tax agency in the world, but it is already 25 per cent over budget. We have the prospect of an old-fashioned paper-based system in the 21st century and now we discover that the head of the tax agency has no tax qualification. It is hard to believe that, just three weeks ago, the head of Revenue Scotland said that there was “nothing negative” to report. What confidence can we have that the First Minister will tell us if anything negative happens again?
Let me repeat that Willie Rennie accused that civil servant at the weekend of potentially misleading Parliament and then did not have the courtesy to go to the committee to put that allegation to her directly and allow her the opportunity to answer it. More substantively on this issue, I did not and do not criticise Audit Scotland’s report. In answer to Willie Rennie last week, I gave some substantial facts about the progress that Revenue Scotland is making on the employment of staff, the implementation of its information technology system and the testing of that system.
I think that we should all be supporting and getting behind Revenue Scotland as it makes the progress it needs to make to implement and deliver the devolved taxes from 1 April. The Deputy First Minister and I will be overseeing that very closely. Willie Rennie—or any member—is entitled to ask the officials to go before parliamentary committees; they have done that in the past. Maybe in future Willie Rennie will turn up to a committee and ask some questions himself.
This is a matter of the utmost seriousness. I said to Willie Rennie in perfectly good faith last week, and I say to him in perfectly good faith again today, that this Government takes it seriously. I am happy to discuss it in this chamber or anywhere else with Willie Rennie at any time.
Rendition Flights (Judicial Inquiry)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on a judicial inquiry being held regarding any part that Scotland might have had in respect of possible United Kingdom involvement with rendition flights at Scottish airports. (S4F-02480)
The Scottish Government strongly opposes so-called rendition flights. Scotland has always been a country that respects the rights and responsibilities of all its citizens and the rule of law. The Scottish Government has not and will not approve a policy of facilitating the transfer of individuals through Scottish territory or air space to places where there are substantial grounds to believe that they would face a real risk of torture.
There is already an on-going Police Scotland investigation directed by the Lord Advocate into the alleged use of Scottish airports for so-called rendition flights. I hope that everybody in the chamber will agree that that must be allowed to run its course.
I thank the First Minister for her answer. However, in 2005, following reports that, inter alia, there had allegedly been seven rendition flights by the Central Intelligence Agency through Wick and Inverness airports, the Danish Government denied the CIA the use of its airports, and yet the UK Government and the then Scottish Executive, which incidentally owned both airports, did nothing. The issue was treated—I repeat, for the Tory press office, treated—not with similar seriousness. Does the First Minister agree that there must be a fully independent judicial inquiry, and not a UK Parliament inquiry, and that the Crown Office, which has already been referred to, must play its full part as it seems that there might very well have been crimes committed on Scottish soil?
I certainly agree with Christine Grahame that the issues raised about rendition flights should be fully and thoroughly investigated, not least where there has been any active criminality. I support Christine Grahame’s call for the UK Government to open an independent, judge-led inquiry into these matters.
As I indicated in my earlier answer, there is an on-going criminal investigation into the alleged use of Scottish airports for rendition flights. I am sure that arrangements could be made to ensure that a judge-led inquiry and the Police Scotland investigation could take place in parallel so that these matters were scrutinised fully, as they deserve to be.
Kinloss Rescue Co-ordination Centre (Closure)
To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Ministry of Defence regarding the closure of the Kinloss rescue co-ordination centre. (S4F-02486)
The Scottish Government absolutely does not support the closure of the aeronautical rescue co-ordination centre at Kinloss. The relocation of the centre represents the latest in a series of disproportionate cuts to military personnel and MOD civilian staff in Scotland. It also follows previous United Kingdom Government cuts to the coastguard service, which this Government also strongly opposed.
I am disappointed that the Scottish Government was not alerted to the closure and so held no discussions with the MOD in advance of its announcement. Following that announcement, the Government contacted the MOD for urgent assurances that the closure would have no detrimental impact on search and rescue provision, tasking or co-ordination in Scotland. Subsequently, the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence to confirm that the Scottish Government does not support the decision and to note our disappointment that we were neither consulted nor notified in advance of the announcement, despite the very significant devolved interests that are involved.
At Christmas a little more than 10 years ago, I was an observer on a Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopter, which was flying a few hundred feet over Loch Ness. It was sent by the centre to save a Swiss tourist who had fallen off the mountain in Glen Coe, so I know at first hand the experience, the expertise and the excellence of the staff at Kinloss.
I believe that closing the centre defies the military maxim that if it ain’t broke, why fix it? Will the First Minister join all the party leaders today to make an eleventh-hour bid to save the Kinloss centre and provide some Christmas cheer for the civilian and military staff who are acknowledged by mountaineers and offshore workers alike as a beacon of light on the hill?
I thank Dave Stewart for his question and the tone in which he asked it. I acknowledge his long-standing interest and expertise in this area. I could not agree more with the sentiment—or indeed the substance—of his question. I would be delighted to convene a cross-party campaign from the chamber to seek to persuade the UK Government to change its mind. I am happy to have further discussions with Dave Stewart and his colleagues on that matter.
Lima Climate Change Agreement
I associate the Green and Independent group of MSPs with the comments made regarding the terrible crimes in Pakistan and Australia. I also offer our congratulations to Kezia Dugdale on her election.
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the agreement that was reached at the climate change talks in Lima. (S4F-02497)
The Lima call for climate action has kept the international negotiations moving forward, although with very important issues—principally, the overall level of global ambition—yet to be resolved. Scotland has already unilaterally set challenging targets, both pre and post-2020, with a world-leading target of at least a 42 per cent emissions cut by 2020 and a 58 per cent cut by 2027. That is in line with what the climate science tells us we have to do.
Scotland’s targets are not easy, but they are at the level that the international community needs to match if the new universal climate treaty in Paris next year is to stand a good chance of limiting the global temperature rise to no more than 2°C, as the international community has already agreed to do.
If we are ever going to see a meaningful, robust and legally binding agreement come out of this process, it is vital that wealthy, developed countries—particularly those that are still precariously dependent on the production of the very fossil fuels that have brought the climate into such global peril—are able to make commitments of the kind that the First Minister refers to, so the Scottish Government is right to attend those talks and to demonstrate that commitment. However, that commitment is only credible if we start meeting the targets rather than just setting them. What policy changes does the First Minister think are necessary from the Scottish Government to start meeting those targets and rebuilding our credibility on climate change?
First, I agree whole-heartedly with Patrick Harvie that there is no point in setting targets if your determination is not to meet them. We will continue, through the report on proposals and policies and further iterations of that document, to look very critically at the policy interventions that we are making, where we are not succeeding in some of those interventions and where we need to do more. We will continue, as we have done in the past, to seek to involve the entire chamber in that process.
On a positive note, in the context of that question it is worth noting that figures out just this morning show that, for the first time ever in Scotland, generation from renewables accounts for the same proportion of total generation as fossil fuels. There is much for us still to do, but we are making good progress and we have the ambition to do more. I would hope that everybody could welcome that progress.
What assistance can the Scottish Government provide to developing countries to help them to reduce emissions?
We will seek to ensure that, as well as its other objectives, everything that we do through our international aid programme helps to reduce emissions. Humza Yousaf, the Minister for Europe and International Development, would be happy to talk to Rod Campbell in greater detail.
Perhaps the greatest thing that we can continue to do, not just in respect of developing countries but overall, is to challenge ourselves to lead by example. In so many areas, actions speak louder than words. Let us keep doing the right things; in doing that, we can encourage others to follow our example.
What particular policy does the First Minister think we need to put on the agenda in Scotland, given that we have missed our targets three years in a row and that there are key areas, such as transport, housing and agriculture, where we need to make urgent progress?
I congratulate Sarah Boyack on her new shadow cabinet post.
Sarah Boyack knows what the specific policies are that we think we need to achieve, because they are laid out in some considerable detail in the RPP. They go right across the spectrum of our responsibilities—on housing, on transport and on agriculture. Some of the targets are challenging and difficult to achieve, which is why we need to continue to challenge ourselves to do more. If those targets were easy to meet, they would not be ambitious enough. Let us all resolve, then, to keep doing what we need to do.
There is a lesson here for all of us as politicians. In my experience in government, which now stretches over seven years, I have found that we hear calls from Opposition members to do things, until those things become controversial, and then they oppose us doing those things. Let us all be determined, not just to have warm words on this issue, but to follow through with the brave action that is needed.
Previous
General Question Time