Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, September 22, 2011

Official Report 1098KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00146)

I am delighted to say that I will meet later today Vion’s chief executive officer, Ton Christiaanse, whose company is to establish a new centre of excellence in Broxburn that will create 250 new additional jobs and safeguard 1,000 others. Among the 250 new jobs will be up to 100 modern apprenticeships. That is in line with the Government’s aim to use public support as a lever for job creation and training opportunities. I know that the whole Parliament will welcome that latest in a long line of major international companies that are showing their confidence and faith in Scotland’s future.

One hundred modern apprenticeships are always welcome but, as we saw last week, 72,000 young Scots are unemployed. Such levels were last experienced under the Tory Government in 1992, so why on earth did the First Minister cut further education funding in his budget yesterday?

I am glad that Iain Gray welcomes modern apprenticeships. We should remember that the level of modern apprenticeships—at 25,000 a year for the next five years—is 60 per cent higher than the level that we inherited from the Labour Party. As he knows, the remarkable point about the budget is that funding for further and higher education and for educational opportunities for our young people is substantially increasing in Scotland, even against the worst cuts from Westminster in a generation.

The fact is that Scotland’s colleges deliver many modern apprenticeships. The First Minister cut further education funding last year and has cut it again—by 20 per cent in real terms over the piece.

I spoke to Scotland’s Colleges today. Colleges do not believe that they can sustain their contribution to apprenticeships with the scale of cuts. A thousand jobs have gone from our colleges and it is clear that student places are next.

Last week, Mike Russell told us that he would shut colleges. Let us have the truth about the Scottish National Party’s education cuts: how many colleges will it get rid of—10, 20 or 30?

If we are dealing with the truth, let us be accurate about what Mike Russell said only last week. He said that mergers of colleges were a productive idea, as with the recent merger in the city of Glasgow, which was—if memory serves—even supported by the Labour Party in that great city.

The 25,000 modern apprenticeships a year will be achieved, as the 100,000 training places will be. The documents that were published yesterday show that our investment in post-16 education will rise from £1.92 billion to £1.99 billion, which is an increase of 3.5 per cent. That is a remarkable performance, given the spending cuts that Westminster is imposing on the Parliament and the Government.

I would have thought that Iain Gray would, perhaps in passing, welcome the opportunities for all strategy—a guaranteed training or educational opportunity for every youngster between 16 and 19 in Scotland. Should not the entire Parliament unite behind that?

Yes—indeed. I agree absolutely with the SNP’s George Kerevan, who said that that initiative was

“a policy straight out of Labour’s election manifesto, but welcome for all that.”

The trouble is that those who have to deliver the training places do not believe that they will be able to do it when they face a 20 per cent cut. Back in the 1990s, when we had similar levels of youth unemployment, even the Tories created new colleges and universities to expand opportunity, but the Government is going to close them down. It is not just colleges, because the First Minister is going to get rid of universities, too. Everyone knows that Mike Russell has a hit list. So let us have the truth: which universities has the First Minister decided to close?

I know that Iain Gray, throughout his time as Labour leader, has led with his chin at First Minister’s question time, but that takes the biscuit. Has he seen any of the statements from university principals in the past 24 hours? Professor Seamus McDaid, the convener of Universities Scotland, said:

“This is a very significant investment in Scotland’s universities and one which will put the sector on a competitive footing for the future. The Scottish Government has acted to close the ... funding gap facing Scotland’s universities.”

Professor Tim O’Shea, the vice-convener of Universities Scotland, said:

“The protection of our international standing is vital”,

and the Scottish Government continues

“to lever-in ... over £1 billion every year to the Scottish economy.”

Best of all, Professor Anton Muscatelli—who has not always been the most enthusiastic person in commenting on the Scottish Government, so he should have his day today—said:

“I strongly welcome the investment announced by the Scottish Government in Universities in today’s Spending Review. This is a fantastic commitment by the Scottish Government which fully meets the funding needs of Scottish higher education, and makes us completely competitive with other higher education systems.”

Given that endorsement from Professor Muscatelli, will Iain Gray find it in his heart to realise that the Scottish Government is investing in the future of Scotland?

The fact is that the First Minister is not going to close Anton Muscatelli’s university or Tim O’Shea’s university; he is going to close the University of Abertay Dundee, which has 500 staff and 5,000 students and is the best university in the country in environmental science and computer gaming. It is top of Mike Russell’s hit list. Will the First Minister tell us now—yes or no—is he going to close Abertay?

I quoted the convener and vice-convener of Universities Scotland, who speak for all the universities. As I pointed out, Iain Gray has totally misrepresented the education secretary—twice now in this question session. Given that nobody in the country believes that the Labour Party, if it had been in government, would have funded our universities to anything like the same extent, can he find it in himself to agree with Universities Scotland and with the words of Anton Muscatelli that this is a “fantastic” settlement for our universities?

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister—or perhaps that should be His High Excellency, as I understand from The Times he now likes to be styled—when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00140)

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

The First Minister likes to wax lyrical at every opportunity about powers that he does not have, such as that over corporation tax, which he wants to be devolved. How many businesses in Scotland would benefit from his recently published proposal for a corporation tax cut?

The corporate tax cut in Scotland that could be proposed by a Scottish Government that had those powers would create tens of thousands of new jobs in Scotland. I hear that business is against such a thing, but I heard from the Confederation of British Industry that it is thoroughly in favour of such a move. Of course, it was the CBI in Northern Ireland that saw the advantages of such a move there. I wonder why the CBI in Scotland cannot follow its example.

I notice that only two moves along the bench from Annabel Goldie is David McLetchie. If I remember correctly, David McLetchie signed up to Wendy Alexander’s declaration that if any other country in these islands had powers over corporation tax, this Parliament and this Government should have them as well.

It is not the CBI or David McLetchie who is sitting over there to answer questions but the First Minister. That is not the question I asked; I shall give him an answer to the question I asked, because he does not want to admit it. According to the Scottish Parliament’s researchers, fewer than 3 per cent of all businesses in Scotland would benefit from his proposal. By the Government’s own admission, it would take 20 years to create the 27,000 new jobs that it estimates would be created by reducing corporation tax.

I am all in favour of cutting tax for business but the First Minister has a tax power that he can use right now. The tax is called business rates and it is paid by the vast majority of businesses in Scotland and not just 3 per cent.

In a press release from the Deputy First Minister no less, we are told that the small business bonus scheme, delivered by the Conservatives—[Laughter.] Let me dispel the raucous laughter. Without the votes from these benches there would be no small business bonus. The scheme created 40,000 new jobs in just four years at a fraction of the cost of the First Minister’s corporation tax proposal.

Why on earth was yesterday’s budget silent on extending more help to more businesses, large and small, to cut their business rates and create more jobs right now with the powers that we already have?

I do not know whether Annabel Goldie bothered to look at the reaction of the Federation of Small Businesses to yesterday’s budget but it was incredibly enthusiastic, not just about measures to end the disparity between small and large retailers in Scotland, but about the continuation of the small business bonus in particular. It is the most extraordinary, fantastic incentive, helping 80,000 small businesses across Scotland and giving small business a £3,000 advantage over businesses elsewhere in these islands.

One of the great things about our having a majority Government is that Annabel Goldie will no longer be able to claim the credit for Scottish National Party policy. I therefore put it to her as simply as possible, as a matter of arithmetic, that we will no longer depend on the votes of the Conservative party on the budget as it goes through over the next few months. Does it not follow that, by definition, the decision to continue with the small business bonus—that fantastic scheme that benefits 80,000 small businesses across Scotland—must now be entirely the responsibility of this SNP Government?

As Iain Gray did not get an answer to his final question, will the First Minister confirm the report in The Herald on Monday that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning is in favour of the University of Dundee and the University of Abertay Dundee merging?

That is not what Iain Gray asked. As I tried to point out a number of times, Iain Gray twice said that the cabinet secretary had proposed the closure of further and higher education institutions and universities. The cabinet secretary did no such thing. He opened up the possibility of mergers, and we have seen mergers in the further and higher education sector, including in the university sector. For example, as I am sure Jenny Marra knows, Edinburgh College of Art recently merged with the University of Edinburgh.

For accuracy, I put it to Jenny Marra, who asked her question much more carefully than her current party leader did—a candidacy for the future might be in the offing—that mergers between higher education institutions have happened many times in Scottish history. A merger is entirely different from a closure, and Iain Gray is scaremongering.

The First Minister will be aware of the mass resignation of the lay members of the Vale of Leven monitoring group—a group set up by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy. They resigned because they felt that their views were substantially ignored by the health board, as demonstrated by the board’s proposal to close the Christie ward, which provides in-patient mental health services. On the basis that there is an increase in the number of mental health cases, that Gartnavel is unable to cope with the numbers, and that patients from my community are being sent to Lanarkshire and Ayrshire, will the First Minister or the health secretary meet me and the lay members involved to discuss their concerns?

I am sure that the health secretary will be glad to agree to that meeting. Obviously we are disappointed by the decision of the lay members, but we are grateful to the group for its input into the board’s implementation of the vision for the Vale. We are fully aware of the strength of feeling and support for the Christie ward. That is why the cabinet secretary approved the vision for the Vale in July 2009. Therefore, the health secretary will be delighted to meet the member to pursue talks. I point out to the member as gently as I can that if it had been up to her and the Labour Party, there would not be a Vale of Leven hospital to have such talks about.

---

Borders Railway (Cost Cap)

3. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government plans to impose a cap on the costs of the Borders railway project. (S4F-00149)

We are committed to delivering the Borders railway project within budget.

Does the First Minister understand the concerns arising from reports this week of mounting costs and mounting delays in this non-profit-distributing project? If he does, and given his Government’s choice of that funding method, will he explain what else he will do—if he is not pursuing a cap—if the sole remaining bidder seeks to further increase the price of completing the project?

The timescales referred to in the media earlier this week are consistent with our programme for delivering the Borders railway on budget and by December 2014. We put the construction figure between £235 million and £295 million and we are sticking to that. The Minister for Housing and Transport will make an announcement on the future delivery of the project in the near future.

I say two things to Lewis Macdonald. The track record of Transport Scotland under the Scottish National Party Administration in delivering huge projects on time and under budget—the M74 and the M80, for example—is impeccable, compared with the record under the Labour-Lib Dem Administration. Of course, when Lewis Macdonald was a transport minister, not only did he not put a penny into the Borders railway project, which he claimed to support, but he was a major sponsor of the private finance initiative. Only this week we have seen yet again detailed the cost to future generations of Scots of that misguided policy.

Can I further remind the First Minister that, on the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration’s watch, the cost of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line went from £23 million to £85 million and was two years late—incidentally, with not one piece of the Borders line being laid, notwithstanding—

Do you have a question, Ms Grahame? [Interruption.]

Members: Question!

There was a question.

Can we have the question, please?

Tavish Scott, the minister, said that the Borders line would be up and running by 2007. Does the First Minister therefore agree that he needs no lessons on delivering transport projects on budget or on time from the Opposition?

Yes I do. The cost of railway projects is an important aspect that this chamber should acknowledge. The Airdrie to Bathgate link cost £375 million and was the largest commuter line to be opened in Scotland in a century. It was officially opened this year and was within budget. That is testament to the track record of this Government compared with that of our predecessors.

It has been five years since the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill was passed in 2006. Does the First Minister really expect the people of Midlothian and the Borders to believe that trains will roll into their communities in 2014, give that the timetable keeps going back and back? In 2009, the then transport minister stated:

“a contract for the construction of the railway work will be delivered in autumn 2011.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 24 November 2009; S3O-8498.]

Can you just get to the question, Mr Hume?

We are now in autumn 2011. Can the First Minister give us a specific date when we can all go online and book our tickets to Galashiels?

I repeat what I said two questions ago to Lewis Macdonald: the timescales referred to in the media are consistent with our programme for delivering the Borders railway on budget and by December 2014. The confidence that Jim Hume can have in that statement is based on the strong delivery record of Transport Scotland in this Government’s term of office, when project after project has been delivered on time and on budget. We should not allow the mistakes of the past, committed by other parties, to make us lose confidence in the ability of this Government to find a way to deliver the project on time and on budget.

---

Transmission Charges

4. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding transmission charges for companies wishing to connect to the UK grid. (S4F-00143)

The Scottish Government, supported by other voices across the chamber, has long argued that in the rapidly changing energy sector the current transmission charging regime makes no sense and must be changed. Scotland has some of the greatest low-carbon energy resources in Europe, yet the locational pricing approach sees Scottish generators in the areas of highest renewable resource paying the highest charges in the UK.

We had substantial hopes that we were on the brink of a breakthrough on the matter, and we are still confident of a better outcome, but I would like the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets to declare its direction of travel sooner rather than later.

Earlier this week, Scottish Renewables chief executive Niall Stuart claimed that the proposed 1,600MW of wave and tidal projects that are planned for Pentland Firth and Orkney waters face an annual grid charge of £56 million, compared with the subsidy of £11 million that they would receive if they were sited off the south-west coast of England. Is it the case that that unfair discrepancy in connection charges could jeopardise Scotland’s fulfilment of its massive potential in renewables? Will the First Minister again urge the UK Government to look at the issue?

I have pressed the issue many times with the previous UK Government and the current UK Government. Just this month, in his most recent response to my argument for a level playing field for generation across the UK, Mr Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, indicated broad agreement with that approach.

I remind members across the chamber that the last time there was a motion on the subject in the Parliament, it was agreed—with no votes against—that there should be a more equitable approach to transmission charging across the UK, and one that did not discriminate against Scotland or particular parts of Scotland. The result of the relevant division was: For 57, Against 0. The motion carried the support of the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. There were 52 abstentions. I still do not understand why the Conservative and Labour Parties could not find it in their hearts to argue that Scottish generators should get an equal deal so that we could mobilise the great resources of Scotland.

I know that the First Minister has welcomed project transmit, which has been undertaken under the current coalition Government, and I am sure that he will welcome the extension of the project’s timeframe to allow all the issues to be thrashed out in more detail.

However, the First Minister will, no doubt, have noticed from the report by Scottish Renewables that came out earlier this week the large discrepancies that exist in connection charges, particularly in island areas. Is there now a case for separating the issue as it relates to island areas from the issue as it relates to the rest of the UK in order to break the logjam?

There should not be a logjam. We had every reason to believe that the announcements from Ofgem that were expected this autumn would end the massive disparity that exists. We believe that we have the support of the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for that, and we are still confident that we will obtain a resolution of this long-standing and quite disgraceful piece of discrimination.

I am surprised to hear Liam McArthur welcome the delay in the reaching of a conclusion. We had good reason to believe that matters would be resolved this autumn. That resolution is of such importance because investment decisions cannot wait for Ofgem to have another six months of talk. We need action, and we believe that we had an agreement in principle that action would be taken.

I know that Liam McArthur will add his voice to the many other voices across Scotland that say that the present disparity must end and must end now.

---

Further Education (Job Losses)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking following the loss of 1,000 jobs in the further education sector over the last year. (S4F-00148)

It is important for each and every member and constituency that we protect college places for young Scots. We are providing a record number of training opportunities. That includes a commitment to provide, for the first time, a learning or training place for all 16 to 19-year-olds.

Reform of the college sector means that we can deliver those crucial new opportunities for young Scots. The Scottish Government has reiterated to college principals the importance of avoiding compulsory redundancies, and that has been achieved in almost every college.

I am intrigued to know how yesterday’s announcement of 20 per cent cuts in colleges’ budgets will help to prevent future job losses.

I am glad that the First Minister mentioned college places. Will he guarantee that, despite the cuts, he will meet his election manifesto promise to maintain the number of college places for Scotland’s students over this parliamentary session?

We will meet not only that manifesto commitment but the others that the Scottish people so strongly supported.

As far as compulsory redundancies in colleges are concerned, I welcome again the Labour Party’s support for the education ministers’ urging Scotland’s colleges to go down the same road taken by the other areas of the public sector that are in the Government’s control and avoid compulsory redundancies. Many colleges have already given that commitment.

Does the First Minister agree that there is nothing more inspirational for fans and players alike before a Scotland rugby international game than the sound of the pipes? Does he share the disappointment of hundreds of Scottish fans who have travelled halfway across the world to support the national team, and will he do what he can to ensure that the ban is lifted? [Interruption.]

Excuse me, Mr Eadie, that has nothing to do with the question that was posed.

---

Supreme Court and High Court of Justiciary (Criminal Cases)

6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has received a response from the Advocate General to the final report of the review of the relationship between the High Court of Justiciary and the Supreme Court in criminal cases. (S4F-00141)

I understand that the Advocate General wrote to Lord McCluskey yesterday indicating that he would reflect further on the review’s conclusions. Lord McCluskey’s review group has recommended a resolution to the clear anomaly whereby appeal to the United Kingdom Supreme Court is refused by the High Court in Scotland but there is still potential for leave to be granted to appeal to the Supreme Court. That is not possible for cases from English courts, and the review group agreed that there was “no comprehensible reason” for that inconsistency. I hope that, in considering the review, Lord Wallace will work with the Scottish Government to develop provisions for inclusion in the Scotland Bill that will resolve that unsatisfactory anomaly.

In light of Willie Rennie’s comments last week, does the First Minister agree that it would be helpful to know whether the Liberal Democrats in the Parliament support Lord McCluskey’s review group report? At this stage, we have no firm position from the Advocate General on the inclusion in the Scotland Bill of the review group’s suggestions. Does the First Minister feel that it would be helpful to know where the Liberal Democrats in the Parliament stand on that? [Interruption.]

The First Minister is not responsible for the Liberal Democrats in the Parliament.

Does the First Minister accept that Lord McCluskey’s review group confirmed that

“the Supreme Court should continue to have an appellate jurisdiction in relation to issues of Convention rights arising in Scottish criminal cases”?

That is precisely the point that led to the First Minister’s and Mr MacAskill’s rather intemperate attacks on the court and the legal profession.

Does the First Minister also accept that the review rebuts his view that it would be better for people to wait years to be heard in Strasbourg than to be heard in London?

Given that the review group has disagreed with him on those matters, will the First Minister indicate how he plans to rebuild the relationship between the Government and the judicial system? I am sure that he recognises that that relationship is critical to giving people confidence in the Government and the justice system.

I am delighted to find that I am not responsible for the Liberal Democrats.

The way to rebuild confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system is to strengthen its historic independence. Lord McCluskey is a distinguished former law officer who served under a Labour Administration. His review group contained Sir Gerald Gordon, who was once described by Lord Hope as the master of Scots criminal law. We could not have had a more high-powered review group examining the matter.

Lord McCluskey indicated that his group would make recommendations within the current constitutional position, and I accepted that that was the basis on which the review group would proceed. Given the current constitutional arrangements, is it not reasonable for us to unite as a Parliament behind the two central recommendations of the McCluskey report? The first is that it is unsatisfactory and unequal that the Supreme Court is allowed to take on cases without the leave of the High Court of Justiciary. That is wrong, and the Supreme Court has no corresponding right that affects the English courts. The second recommendation is that the Supreme Court should rule on points of law and not on points of disposal, which should be left to the criminal authorities and courts of Scotland.

By appointing the McCluskey group, I have tried to get the Parliament to unite behind the defence of the independence and integrity of the Scottish criminal justice system. In order to do that, I accepted Lord McCluskey’s proposal that he should make recommendations within the context of the current constitutional position. We have had those recommendations, so I ask the Parliament to unite behind the McCluskey report and insist that his recommendations are now inserted into the Scotland Bill.

12:31 Meeting suspended.

14:15 On resuming—