Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02266)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Presiding Officer, the First Minister and I can agree on two things: Sir Ian Wood is the pre-eminent expert on North Sea oil, and Sir Ian does not have much time for politicians. Yesterday, he reluctantly entered the referendum debate, saying that he did so
“as a father and grandfather”,
and saying that he did not want future generations to ask why he had stood silent. He warned that the Scottish Government had overestimated oil and gas production by between 45 and 60 per cent. He warned that the First Minister had overestimated oil tax revenue by £2,000 million a year. Is Sir Ian Wood right or would the First Minister care to explain to him, his children, his grandchildren and the generations to come why he is wrong?
I hope that Johann Lamont and I can agree on more than two things. We agree, as I remember from just two weeks ago, that Scotland has the potential to be a prosperous independent country. I think that everybody agreed with that in the chamber.
Let me agree that Ian Wood is an authority on North Sea oil and gas. He is not the only authority, of course—Professor Alex Kemp and Sir Donald MacKay are also major authorities on oil and gas—but I think that what Ian Wood has to say on matters should be considered very carefully indeed.
I point out to Johann Lamont that the figure that I have often quoted of up to 24 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent remaining in the North Sea is not a Scottish Government figure at source. It is the figure that the industry produced and has used for a number of years, and I think that it is a robust figure. It shows the extraordinary potential that remains in the waters round Scotland, if indeed the policies are pursued and the stewardship is correct to make sure that these resources work for the Scottish people.
There are two things. The First Minister recognised that Sir Ian Wood is an authority, but if Sir Ian says something that the First Minister does not want to hear, he simply ignores it. That is not good enough. Secondly, I would have imagined that Sir Ian knew exactly what the First Minister said about these figures. He is offering a critique that we must address.
The First Minister has rightly praised Ian Wood in the past, and it is for the public to judge why he disagrees with him now. Sir Ian said:
“relevant to Scotland’s independent debate is how long offshore oil and gas production will last ... young voters must be fully aware that by the time they are middle aged, Scotland will have little offshore oil and gas production and this will seriously hit our economy, jobs, and public services.”
Can the First Minister tell our children and grandchildren why Sir Ian Wood was wrong to give them that warning?
Presiding Officer,
“My headline message for the youth of today - get involved. The North Sea oil industry will see you through your lifetime”—
Ian Wood, BBC, 9 November 2012. Yes, of course Ian Wood is an authority on North Sea oil and gas and he has been foremost in pointing out the future potential of the oil and gas province.
I listened to Ian Wood today on the radio, and he said—I think that he was right to do so, because Alex Kemp is the foremost authority on the modelling of North Sea oil and gas and what remains—that he had spoken to Professor Alex Kemp over the past few days and he felt that 15 billion to 16.5 billion barrels was an appropriate estimate. Incidentally, that compares with the Office for Budget Responsibility estimate of 10 billion over the next 30 years. In my calculation, the figure is 60 per cent higher than the one offered by the agencies of Her Majesty’s Government.
Ian Wood said that he had been speaking to Professor Alex Kemp over the past few days, so I consulted Professor Alex Kemp’s statement on the University of Aberdeen’s website. What Sir Ian Wood said is absolutely correct. The statement says:
“Professor Alex Kemp and Linda Stephen”—
his research partner—
“have conducted substantial modelling on the potential long term recovery of oil and gas”.
It goes on to make certain projections and says:
“If targeted tax incentives were introduced the economic recovery to 2050 could increase to 15-16.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent.”
It goes on—and this is available on the University of Aberdeen’s website:
“But there is potential for further developments after 2050 if other fields can be rendered economically viable. Professor Kemp and Linda Stephen found that at the year 2050 no less than 125 known existing discoveries remained undeveloped ... With further ... progress and oil prices ... This should also apply to new discoveries from future exploration.”—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the First Minister.
It finishes:
“Thus the ultimate potential of 24 billion barrels of oil equivalent foreseen by Oil and Gas UK appears plausible.”
Now we have a point of agreement: 16.5 billion barrels up to 2050 and 24 billion barrels as the total of the oil province. Listen, that is a lot of billions of barrels, and Scotland should welcome it.
Well, that will give a lot of confidence to people who are worrying about the future. The First Minister said that he listened to Sir Ian Wood, but he did not hear—or he wilfully refused to hear—what Sir Ian Wood was saying. He should reflect on the fact that Sir Ian Wood said that he felt obliged to intervene on the debate because he was frustrated at being misrepresented and misquoted.
What the First Minister has just given us is a hallmark of his approach to persuading people to support his lifelong political project—say whatever has to be said to get by in the moment but ignore the substance of the argument.
In his warning, Sir Ian Wood envisaged that, far from exporting energy to the rest of the United Kingdom, an independent Scotland would have to import from the rest of the UK. This pre-eminent expert, as identified by the First Minister, said:
“Unfortunately, I think Scotland will also lose out on renewables. The UK is currently heavily subsidising our renewable energy pricing.”
He added of the oil industry—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Ms Lamont, please.
This is about the future of our country, not the future of the First Minister’s political project.
Sir Ian Wood added of the oil industry:
“most operators would feel more confident if Scotland was to remain part of the UK.”
I ask the First Minister again: why was Sir Ian Wood wrong to say that, in the interests of our children, our grandchildren and the generations to come?
I have already pointed out that Sir Ian Wood is on the record as saying, addressing the youth of Scotland:
“The North Sea oil industry will see you through your lifetime”.
He is right to say so, because 2050 is not the limit of the oil industry; it will go on long beyond that.
Johann Lamont says that I am misquoting Sir Ian Wood, but I have the transcript of his interview this morning. I have spoken to Alex Kemp two or three times recently and he is pretty clear in his view that the 15 billion to 16.5 billion range that I have quoted is probably the right sort of range.
That is exactly the point that I was making. Yes, Alex Kemp says that there will be 15 billion to 16.5 billion barrels up to 2050. He goes on to say that it will be up to 24 billion, if you take into account the resource in reserves.
This poor, benighted country of Scotland, with only 16.5 billion barrels of oil up to 2050, which will be worth only £1 trillion in wholesale value over that period, or, perhaps if we go on longer, only £1.5 trillion—a trillion is a thousand billion. This poor, benighted country, visited with a great curse of 15 billion barrels of oil. Every other country in the world would give its eye teeth for such a substantial resource. Why do the Labour Party and its allies think that it is a great curse on Scotland?
Incidentally, having 25 per cent of the offshore renewable energy potential of the continent of Europe is also an asset, not a disadvantage, for an independent Scotland. [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister calls Scotland a “poor, benighted country”. It is not; it is a wonderful country that deserves not to have its intelligence insulted by that kind of response. [Interruption.]
Order.
This argument is not a debating point between me and the First Minister; it is about what a senior person in the oil industry is saying. It is about the future of our country.
Let us review the record over the past two years. The First Minister said that he had European Union legal advice. That was not true. [Interruption.]
Order. Carry on, Ms Lamont.
I think that it has been established beyond peradventure that that was not true.
John Swinney said that he was in discussions with the Bank of England on a currency union, and that was not true. Nicola Sturgeon told the Scottish National Party conference in April this year that, under devolution, the national health service in Scotland could not be privatised. That is true, but Alex Salmond now says that it is not. [Interruption.]
Order. We will get through this a lot quicker if the applauding and the jeering stop.
Ms Lamont, this is your last question. Will you just get to it?
Let me hope in all optimism that we will get an answer to the question.
Scotland’s greatest oil expert says that independence would be bad for Scotland and he is derided by his own First Minister.
Is it not the case that Alex Salmond does not have a plan B on currency, on Europe, or on oil? The trouble is that Scotland does not trust Alex Salmond because he is the man without a plan. [Interruption.]
Order.
I put on the record that Sir Ian Wood, as I said in the answer to the first question, is a respected authority, as are Alex Kemp and the range of experts, including Sir Donald MacKay, who have analysed the Scottish Government figures and produced their own estimates, which are very similar indeed to the Scottish Government’s projections. They say that the United Kingdom Treasury is missing a “mountain of black gold”.
I have pointed out that the figure of up to 24 billion barrels is an industry estimate. It has been used by many people, including the Wood review. I have also pointed out that the 16 billion barrels is up to 2050. Alex Kemp, who is the foremost authority on this area of the oil industry, says that there is more to come and that the 24 billion barrels looks entirely “plausible”.
On the question of the health service, if Johann Lamont cannot bring herself to agree with me, how about agreeing with Unison? The union said:
“Devolution means they can’t run down and privatise our NHS directly”
from London
“the way they are doing in England. But what they can do is starve it of resources. They are cutting back on the money provided to the Scottish Government and”
putting the Scottish budget
“under pressure.” [Interruption.]
Order.
Johann Lamont asked me who is to blame for what. I was struck, encouraged and excited by Ian Davidson’s comments only this week. He identified that Labour’s failure was the reason for the SNP’s success and spoke out. He said:
“The reasons why the SNP have done well [over recent years] has been more to do with the failures of the Labour party—the lack of modernisation of the Labour party ... The SNP have been what the Labour party should have become.”
His argument was that Scottish voters moved from Glasgow to the new towns of Scotland and many of them became SNP supporters. He said that they did not want the
“Tammany Hall politics of Labour”. [Interruption.]
Order. Can we get a conclusion, First Minister?
If we get to the situation where I am able to quote Ian Davidson against Johann Lamont, perhaps the reality is that the Labour Party in Scotland does not have a plan A, never mind a plan B. [Interruption.]
Order.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02263)
No plans in the near future.
Sir Ian Wood is the most respected business figure in the North Sea oil industry. For two and a half years in this debate, he has kept his own counsel; he has stayed studiously neutral. As he said yesterday, he had no wish to get involved. I have just heard all the chaff that the First Minister has been firing out to deflect from Sir Ian’s critique yesterday, but what I have not heard, and what I am asking the First Minister, is this: why does he think Sir Ian now feels so compelled to speak out?
Sir Ian Wood wanted to clarify that his opinion is that oil reserves are between 15 billion and 16.5 billion barrels—that is his estimate. I am pointing out that I think that that is based on the forecast of Professor Alex Kemp, who points out today in his University of Aberdeen blog that that applies up to 2050.
There are already oilfields on the west coast that will produce beyond 2050. Alex Kemp has identified more than 100 oil discoveries that are not in the calculations to 2050. He and many industry figures believe that the overall value of the reserves of the oil province is therefore up to 24 billion barrels, which is Oil & Gas UK’s estimate. In a briefing to MSPs last year, Tim Smith, the vice-president of British Petroleum, talked about 41 billion barrels being produced to the end of 2012, and potentially 27 billion barrels of resource in yet-to-recover production beyond 2050.
If the industry estimate is up to 24 billion barrels and major companies are saying 27 billion, does Ruth Davidson not realise that—whether it is 16.5 billion to 2050 or 27 billion beyond 2050—that those many, many billions of barrels of oil are, in wholesale terms, worth many trillions of pounds? Every country in the world would believe that that is an enormous asset. Why do only the Tories and the Labour Party believe that it is an extraordinary liability?
With all due respect to the First Minister, that is not why Sir Ian Wood says that he felt the need at this critical time to speak out. Sir Ian has no worlds left to conquer and he is not trying to win any votes. He just wants the Scottish people to know the facts before they make what will be an irreversible decision.
Throughout the whole debate, the First Minister has twisted facts, ducked hard truths and simply closed his ears to anything that does not fit his lifelong obsession with independence. But not everybody out there is like that; people want to know what is best for their children and their grandchildren. Cannot the First Minister just have the decency, even at this late stage, to concede Sir Ian’s point that
“our young voters must be fully aware that by the time they are middle aged, Scotland will have little offshore oil and gas production and this will seriously hit our economy, jobs and public services.”
That is a direct quotation from Sir Ian. Will the First Minister not concede it?
If Ruth Davidson checks the records, she will find that even her boss, the Prime Minister, has not said that; on the contrary. I have already read out Sir Ian Wood’s rallying call to the youth of Scotland in which he said that they could enter the oil industry and North Sea production would last their entire lifetime. For goodness’ sake, do not misquote—this is an important argument. [Interruption.]
Order. Settle down.
When we get to a position in which Alex Kemp—who is cited as a person to be relied upon for forecasts—points out in his blog that there are “125 known existing discoveries” that, in his estimation, will still be undeveloped in 2050, and when the Clair ridge field is already going to produce beyond 2050, can Ruth Davidson not admit that it is a long-term business that will be with us for generations to come?
Ruth Davidson will know that major figures in the Westminster Government have now admitted that they rather underestimated the significance of oil and gas. Denis Healey said:
“we did underplay the value”
of the resource, and Bernard Ingham said that it was part of his normal “patter” to question the value of the resource. Given the history and track record of Westminster, is it possible that Ruth Davidson’s Government, with its estimate of 10 billion barrels over the next 30 years, is doing exactly the same thing?
Given the evidence of the past 40 years, I think that most people in Scotland will say, “Let’s get our turn of using our natural resources for the benefit of the Scottish people.”
Shipbuilding (Lower Clyde)
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will ensure the future of shipbuilding on the lower Clyde. (S4F-02267)
On Tuesday I met the Ferguson Shipbuilders shop stewards, and I spoke to them again this morning. Tomorrow I will visit the shipyard itself to speak to employees, and I will reiterate the Scottish Government’s commitment to the yard’s future and to their employment.
As Duncan McNeil knows, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth has convened a multi-agency task force, which is due to have its next meeting on Monday.
I assure all members that the Scottish Government is doing, and will do, everything within our power to ensure the continuation of shipbuilding at Ferguson’s.
I thank the First Minister for his response. I am sure that, like me, he is encouraged by the number of bidders who have expressed serious interest in continuing shipbuilding at Ferguson’s, which clearly demonstrates that there is confidence in the yard, the workforce and the future. That is good news in a bad week for the people of Port Glasgow and the Inverclyde community.
We all express serious regret that a yard that has such potential was allowed to close. The closure was brought about by the failure of CalMac Ferries and Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd to place orders for ferries 3 and 4, following the successful builds of MV Hallaig and MV Lochinvar.
Can we have a question, Mr McNeil?
It is the stated position of the Scottish Government that it wants commercial shipbuilding to continue on the lower Clyde at Ferguson’s. I do not question that, but is the First Minister confident that his view is shared by CMAL and CalMac? How will he ensure that, given the requirement for 12 new vessels, £240 million of public investment will be used in support of Ferguson’s and the wider Scottish economy?
When John Swinney made his statement on Tuesday, I thought that Duncan McNeil struck the wrong note in his analysis of the situation. Substantial orders have been placed with the yard, and there are substantial opportunities in relation to the new generation of environmentally sensitive ferries. We have great hopes that we will arrive at a situation in which shipbuilding can continue under new ownership.
Duncan McNeil talked about what encouraged him; two things encourage me greatly. First, I am encouraged by the spirit and determination of the workforce in Ferguson’s. Every commentator on the issue has been unanimous on that issue; no one has questioned the skill, dedication, application, resilience and resolve of the workforce. Every member in this Parliament should give the workforce the maximum support. That encourages me greatly.
Secondly, I was encouraged by the receiver’s statement yesterday. Blair Nimmo made it clear that he is moving to an early deadline of 5 o’clock this evening in relation to offers to be analysed. In his statement, he said that he is doing so because he wants to ensure that there is a chance of continuing Ferguson’s as an ongoing concern. He said that he would be looking particularly at holding the workforce together and ensuring that there are prospects for the future.
Therefore, although we are not there yet, and there will be more anxious hours and days for the workforce at Ferguson’s, I think that we have reason to feel substantial encouragement that is founded not just on this Government’s determination and the support of all members in the Parliament, but on the resolve and resilience of the shipyard workers.
Commission on Strengthening Local Democracy in Scotland
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the final report by the commission on strengthening local democracy. (S4F-02270)
We welcome it. Independence provides the opportunity to empower councils and communities to consider the right level for all decisions to be made, as we set out in our prospectus for Scotland’s island communities.
Local government will be an integral and essential element of an independent Scotland. Its status, in my estimation, can be guaranteed only by a written constitution after independence.
The First Minister will be aware that the report follows the report in 2012 by the Jimmy Reid Foundation, “The Silent Crisis: Failure and Revival in Local Democracy in Scotland”. Does he agree that the only way that we can get a truly democratic society in Scotland is by voting yes on 18 September, to ensure that Westminster Governments do not interfere with the democratic structures that we want in a future Scotland?
I agree with that position.
The point that John Wilson makes is very apposite. There are a range of vital institutions that are part of the fabric of Scotland and to which a written constitution would give entrenched protection. That would be one of the benefits of having a written constitution.
We recently had the Commonwealth games in the city of Glasgow. The games, in which 71 nations and territories competed, were a fantastic success. With the exception of New Zealand, which has an important basic law, every one of those independent countries has a written constitution that preserves and protects the rights of its citizens, as well as enunciating free rights. I agree with John Wilson that the position of local government would be entrenched in a written constitution in an independent Scotland.
Scottish Government Economic Strategy
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government’s economic strategy will help to achieve the aims of its Arbroath “declaration of opportunity”. (S4F-02281)
As I set out in Arbroath, only independence offers the opportunity to release the vast potential of Scotland’s extraordinarily talented population.
Last week, we published our jobs plan for an independent Scotland, which shows how, through independence, we can create more and better job opportunities and help our young people to realise their aspirations and ambitions here in Scotland. It seems to me that, while we offer a declaration of opportunity, Neil Findlay and, of course, his colleagues in the Conservative Party have nothing whatever to declare.
We now know that the First Minister’s oil forecasts are a mere 60 per cent out and that his corporate tax gift to big business would rip £350 million a year from our public services. Will he now accept that it is his voodoo economics that would result in a separate Scotland having an £8.6 million black hole in its finances? Will he apologise for what cancer specialist Dr Anna Gregor says is the complete “and utter lie” about NHS privatisation in the event of a no vote?
I know that, given the member’s alliance with the Conservative Party, it is extremely difficult for him to reflect on the position that lots and lots of people in Scotland agree with the surge of support for protecting our national health service through independence for Scotland and within a written constitution. However, he will have paid close attention to the quote from Unison that I read out, which made the point that, as the health service budget and the public service budget are reduced in England, that will affect Scotland. Surely he does not believe that privatisation is intended to increase the budget of the health service in England. As that happens in England, it will be enforced in Scotland through financial pressure, as Unison identified.
Luckily, of course, the SNP and John Swinney have been in administration and have ensured a real-terms increase in the NHS budget over the past few years, but what has happened in Wales? There has been a 3 per cent decline. Either we believe that the Labour Party in Wales wanted to reduce real-terms spending on the NHS—which even I do not believe—or we believe that that has been forced on Wales through financial pressure from Westminster.
I agree with the Labour Party in Wales, and I agree with the Labour Party in England that the privatisation that the Tories are pursuing in England is endangering the health service. I also agree with Unison, and it is high time that the member did as well. [Interruption.]
Order.
Cancer Mortality Rates
To ask the First Minister what progress has been made in reducing cancer mortality rates. (S4F-02272)
We welcome the figures that were released by Cancer Research UK on Monday 18 August, which show that mortality rates in the four main cancers in Scotland have reduced by around 25 per cent in the past 20 years. We are working with Cancer Research UK in a number of areas, and we endorse its new strategy, which aims to push cancer survival to three in four within the next 20 years.
In recent years, we have invested to improve Scotland’s cancer treatment infrastructure. That investment has included £22 million for the new Beatson centre that is being built at Monklands hospital to help to meet the rising demand for radiotherapy treatment over the next 10 years.
Although improved specialist care, better treatments and fewer people smoking have all contributed to the fall in the death rates from the top four cancer killers, does the First Minister agree that the health inequality gap between the lowest and highest deprivation groups is still far too wide for too many cancers, including lung, cervical and stomach cancer, and that programmes that detect cancer at the earliest stage are absolutely vital to ensuring that everyone in Scotland receives the life-saving treatment that they need and which only a publicly funded and clinically driven health service can provide?
Yes, I do, and that is why the Government has targeted £30 million of investment at early cancer detection through the detect cancer early programme and invested a further £12 million in modernising the Scottish breast screening programme. In addition to screening, the detect cancer early programme focuses on addressing fears about cancer and on recognising signs and symptoms of cancer, and encourages people to get checked if they are worried. As we know, diagnosis and treatment at the earliest stage help to improve survival rates, and this programme will ensure that every patient, regardless of where they live, receives timely treatment and follow-up.
Jim Eadie mentioned the importance of a public health service, and I hope that everyone in the chamber understands the importance of protecting and preserving our national health service in Scotland. That is absolutely vital, and we believe that it can be done through Scottish independence. If there is an alternative route for doing that, it had better get spelled out. However, Labour Party members should remember Ian Davidson’s words, which have already been mentioned at this First Minister’s question time:
“The SNP have been what the Labour party should have become.”
That ends First Minister’s questions.
Previous
General Question Time