Government Priorities
The next item of business is a statement by the First Minister on the Government's priorities.
The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, therefore there should be no interventions.
I also welcome Richard Simpson back to the chamber and congratulate him on his rapid adjustment to Opposition politics. It is rewarding to see.
After the drama of the elections—both the campaign in the country and the ministerial elections last week—it is time to get down to business. Scotland's new politics starts now. This speech, which is designed to outline to Parliament the strategic priorities for the Scottish Government, is necessarily different to any speech that has gone before. Let us, therefore, start as we mean to continue, with respect for the diversity of opinion throughout the chamber.
On behalf of the Government, I intend to lay out a range of policy initiatives. In doing so, I explicitly recognise that the parliamentary arithmetic requires those priorities to be a first draft and not necessarily a final position. Good ideas—well researched and well argued—will be welcomed and considered. However, if the challenge for this Government is to share power with the Parliament, the challenge for the Parliament in return is for every party and every member to remain open to persuasion. To that end, I know that the Parliamentary Bureau will wish to co-operate in relation to the five subject debates that are planned by the Government over the coming weeks in the chamber.
In today's statement I will focus on the economy and energy, but the subject debates will allow parties and members to contribute to and influence the full range of the Government's programme. This will not be a dogmatic or intransigent Government—out of choice, as well as necessity—but nor will we account to a dogmatic or intransigent Parliament, for just as the Government will require to win support from one or more parties to carry a position, so will the Opposition parties require to win support from the Government or from one or more of the other parties to carry a position.
That having been said, I do not favour the mushy ground of false consensus. I do not believe that the public interest is served by parties that are incapable of defining their driving principles or standing their ground. Politics is either about the competition of ideas or it is about nothing at all. However, just as the public interest is served by that competition, so it is better served by thoughtful reflection rather than knee-jerk reaction.
The point is that before we debate the policies and priorities of this Administration, my first strategic priority is to see a change in the culture of politics in Scotland. Ironically, leading a minority Administration—certainly not one with a thumping majority—is perhaps an enormous advantage in leading that change towards consensus governance.
In the spirit of that new politics, let me start with something completely different and indicate a few of the ideas that were proposed by the other parties in the election campaign that we think have merit and which we are keen to investigate further—there will be others as time goes on.
During the campaign, the Liberal Democrats made a strong point about wanting new roles for young people in society. They pledged, for example, to give young people greater influence in decision making. I am delighted that, facilitated by the agreement on Aberdeen City Council, that has been made reality early, as an 18-year-old newly elected councillor is now the depute provost of that great city.
The Conservatives focused on law and order, and flagged up the urgent need for police numbers to rise—they will rise. The only difference between the Government and the Conservative party on that policy was how far and how fast it could be managed. Moreover, we will examine the Conservative party's proposal to permit district courts to issue drug treatment and testing orders and we will examine fully the ways in which we can expand drug rehabilitation throughout Scotland, building on our own manifesto commitments.
The Labour election manifesto was not without positive initiatives. The proposals to raise the smoking age and clamp down on the key social issues of alcohol abuse and the sale of alcohol to those who are underage mirrored some of our own thinking. We look forward to working together in those areas and in others.
The Green party stood on a platform of independence for Scotland—I can guarantee my full support for that position. Even more urgently, in the election the Green party and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats stood, as we did, on a policy of no new nuclear power stations in Scotland.
I hope that even the briefest comparison of the party positions shows where we can work together. I know that those commitments will be taken in the spirit in which they are offered. They suggest a new style of government in Scotland.
Let me also say something about the Government's approach to law making. Despite waiting a very long time to govern, it is not our position that legislative change is always or often the best way to effect change. In some cases, such as the ban on smoking in public places, positive legislative intervention is in the clear public interest. We will not be slow to use the powers of the Parliament to legislate as and when change is needed, but we will not have a default position that assumes that any problem—however big or small—should be resolved through legislation. That route can undermine public confidence. The Parliament must beware of being seen as too intrusive and too interventionist. A Parliament's job is not only to legislate but to debate, to inquire, to hold to account and to understand.
It is time for Government to become more efficient and more creative in the way that decisions are made. Our job in the chamber is to lead and to persuade, not to impose unnecessary burdens on business communities and individuals.
Let me come to the main themes that will dominate the Government's agenda. It will come as no surprise to anyone in the chamber that the domestic agenda will be driven by our key manifesto pledges, which hardly need to be restated this afternoon. As has been understood by all sides, we will rely on the good will and judgment of the chamber as we proceed on an issue-by-issue basis. However, let us try today to focus on what can be achieved.
The overarching priority of the Government is faster and more sustainable economic growth in Scotland. Most Governments make that pledge and then fail to deliver. Scottish growth over the past 10 years has been, in the immortal assessment of the Secretary of State for Scotland, "disappointing". We intend to be different.
The health of the Scottish economy underpins all of our priorities in government. A vibrant, dynamic economy is the beating heart of a successful, confident nation. With the support of the chamber, I hope to introduce changes that are designed to reward energy and creativity, to encourage entrepreneurial spirit and to create an environment in which Scottish business can flourish. Economic success is the prerequisite of every other Government priority, whether that is a world-class education system, a properly funded and respected national health service or getting people into employment as a means of fostering a sense of responsibility and social cohesion.
We see barriers to business as barriers to national progress. Businessmen and businesswomen throughout Scotland have a huge role to play in this nation's future. Our job as a Government is to make their job easier, not harder.
That commitment is not without qualification. The second part of the priority is just as important—not just to grow the Scottish economy but to allow all of our citizens to benefit from the wealth. Moreover, we all have a shared interest in making economic success environmentally sustainable. The future of the western economies in the coming decades will rest on their capacity to fuel economic growth while reducing our impact on the planet. Scotland is not just part of that process; in truth, we are well placed to be a leader in it.
Scotland sits at the heart of one of the wealthiest parts of the planet. In Ireland to our west, Iceland to our north and Norway to our east, we see an arc of prosperity, with those nations sitting at the top of the world's quality of life and wealth league tables. I do not claim that Scotland can be instantly transformed into an economic powerhouse, but I do say that, if we look objectively around us, we can learn many lessons about how to make Scotland more successful.
Economic regeneration may not be achieved in the lifetime of the Parliament. In truth, given the step change that is required it may take a generation before Scotland has tackled all of our economic problems. However, the job of the Government and the Parliament is to make our long-term economic underperformance not a matter of political point scoring but a legitimate area for mature debate.
The Government believes that it would be economically advantageous for Scotland to be an independent country. Other parties disagree. However, as we continue the debate, let us at least agree that this country—our country—has the capacity to become one of the most successful economies on the face of the planet. I start from the ambition and belief that we can rank among the top 15 most competitive nations in the world and at least match United Kingdom growth in the lifetime of this Parliament.
As a starting point, I shall appoint a council of economic advisers to provide independent advice that can help us to make the most of the opportunities in the global economy. The council will have internationally acclaimed participants who will analyse, question, criticise and suggest policy in the Scottish national interest. We have some phenomenal business success stories in Scotland and many individuals who are respected throughout the globe, but we must also be open to advice and perspectives from abroad.
Driving economic growth in the modern world is fundamentally more complex than it was even 20 years ago. We will harness the most impressive academic and business advice to consider the long-term position of the Scottish economy, and we will seek the chamber's support for the recommendations, thus offering all parties the chance to be part of the process.
Just as Gordon Brown was right to support independence for the Bank of England, precisely to move the economic decision making away from political consideration, we need to apply a more objective focus to economic policy in Scotland. The remit and membership of the council will be outlined shortly in a statement to the Parliament, although the council's work is designed to impact on the medium and long-term vision for Scotland.
In the shorter term, we intend to get Scotland's economy moving by working to remove or reduce the burden of business rates on our small businesses in order to free them to grow and create more and better-paid jobs. I believe that at least one other party in the chamber—perhaps more than one—will whole-heartedly support us as we follow that approach. All over Scotland—from the north to the south and from the east to the west—small businesses sit at the heart of our local economies. With better support, they can flourish and help to drive our nation's future economic success.
Even more immediately, I confirm today the Government's commitment to remove tolls from the Tay and Forth bridges. I know that such a move is not universally supported by members, but I believe that it can and should carry majority support. We shall see.
I see no contradiction between the desire to see Scotland competing in a higher economic league and the absolute necessity of ensuring that our approach is sustainable. Our pursuit of economic growth will go hand in hand with our environmental ambitions. That is not just a principled policy commitment—in the face of massive climate challenges, it is a moral imperative. That is why the Parliament will be asked to support a climate change bill that sets ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland.
Scotland will aim to become a global leader in developing solutions to the challenge of climate change. It is crucial that we take and sustain the lead in the green energy revolution. This country has played a hugely influential role in developing green technology, but we must take that role to another level. I want Scotland to become the pre-eminent location for clean energy research and development in Europe. Becoming a world leader in the development of renewables, green technology will provide a happy marriage of economic advantage and meeting head-on the fundamental challenges of climate change. We have the natural resources, the know-how and the skills for Scotland to become the green energy capital of Europe.
In light of the publication today of the United Kingdom Government's energy white paper, it is appropriate that I should provide a fuller sense of the Scottish Government's position on energy. This morning, I listened to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry bemoaning Scotland's energy position. He suggested that, without a continuing nuclear contribution, at some point soon the lights might go out in Scotland. Events are moving fast, and the Department of Trade and Industry may not be fully up to date with developments in Scotland, but members should at least deal with the reality. At some point in the next few weeks, we will reach what I will call green energy day in Scotland—the day on which the installed capacity of renewables generation in Scotland will overtake the installed capacity of nuclear power. I will provide the details that members want. The current installed capacity of our nuclear stations is 2,465MW. As of today, the renewables installed capacity, comprising hydro, wind, biomass and landfill gas installed capacity, is 2,452MW. In two years' time, that figure will be a minimum of 3,086MW. That is not pie in the sky or a plan for the future—it is the here and now.
I acknowledge the contribution that was made by the former Deputy First Minister, who, more than any other figure in the previous Administration, recognised Scotland's renewables potential. Scotland has a comparative or natural advantage in just about every existing and developing renewables technology—wind power, wave power, offshore wind, tidal, biomass and biofuel technologies. Those technologies will take their place with key energy conservation and microgeneration initiatives. Believe it or not, we even have a competitive advantage in solar power, not because Scotland is heating up but because, although it is still relatively cold in the summer, it has long hours of daylight.
Despite the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's claims that only nuclear power can fulfil our energy needs, other huge alternative opportunities demand our attention. Last week at Longannet power station, I discussed with Señor Galán, the new chairman of Scottish Power, the potential of clean coal technologies both to increase generation efficiency and to cut Scotland's carbon emissions. Scottish Power has launched a feasibility study into the refiring not just of Longannet but of Cockenzie power station. Such an investment on its own would reduce Scotland's CO2 emissions by a full 5 per cent and guarantee a long-term future for Scottish coal—I use the word "Scottish" advisedly. One of the many benefits of such an investment is that it would enable the use of Scottish-sourced coal. Another benefit is that the partner company in the feasibility study is Babcock, which has developed superheat technology in Renfrew. The story does not end there. The plan is to enable the coal-fired power stations to use carbon-capture technology. If that technology succeeds, the investment will cut Scotland's CO2 emissions by a full 20 per cent.
Of course, members may say that it is merely a feasibility study. Yes, it is, but it is a study that is being conducted by one of the great energy companies of Europe—Iberdrola/Scottish Power—and it has infinitely more chance of succeeding than any pie-in-the-sky plan to have new nuclear power stations in Scotland that, even if we had a Government that wanted them or a Parliament that would allow them, could not be up and running until 2020 at the earliest.
The chamber will understand that, with other carbon-capture proposals already before ministers, I am limited in what I can say about any specific project—even one in the north-east of Scotland that is backed by some of the largest companies on the planet. However, let me add that this Administration is excited and encouraged by the possibility of our having the world's first hydrogen refinery, with the step-change possibilities of an advance into the hydrogen economy. Although I am limited in what I can say, I know that all MSPs will recognise the importance of those possibilities, which are opening up for our country. This country—our country—is in a unique position to exploit all those technologies.
I want to see a Scotland that is nuclear free—a Scotland that uses its natural resources and know-how to deliver clean and secure energy supplies and that develops new clean-energy technologies that can be exported and used throughout the world. The task—our task—is not just to secure Scotland's electricity supplies, which we can do quickly and efficiently, but to enable the potential 20GW or 30GW from Scotland and Scottish waters to find a market in those parts of Europe that are energy poor rather than, like us, energy rich.
The last years have seen the green agenda move from the fringes of the argument to centre stage. Let us all congratulate the Green party, which has been at the cutting edge of that political achievement. Climate change is one of those rarities—an issue that does not just invite cross-party co-operation but demands it. It is one of the big challenges of this century. No Government or Parliament worthy of the name can afford to ignore the necessity of radical change. I have already committed the Government to a climate change bill but, as everyone in the chamber knows, legislation alone cannot deliver the step change in our everyday living. We will create a Scotland of improved community and household generation of green energy that is focused on investing in and supporting measures to deliver energy efficiency. Delivering a greener Scotland is now a mainstream commitment for progressive politics in Scotland, and I welcome the opportunity to make that commitment a centrepiece of this Administration's policy.
In the weeks to come, my ministers will unveil more detailed proposals that we hope will inspire new thinking, whether in boosting economic growth, in transforming public health, in tackling crime or in further strengthening the reputation of Scottish education. We will also make statements to Parliament—starting this afternoon—on many of the immediate issues that are exercising the attention of the country.
In the time remaining, let me say that this Government will be the most outward looking that Scotland has ever had. The European Union offers an immense opportunity to influence the debate in the Scottish interest, whether it be on energy or farming, fishing or ferries. We make no apology for that. The international community has watched with enormous interest Scotland's emergence since 1999. Scotland has a rich European history and a deep well of good will abroad. This is not a time to be timid in an increasingly global world, but rather a time for Scotland to find its voice.
There are those who will see in every effort to expand the Scottish interest abroad an attempt to use the office of First Minister as a nationalist pulpit or even a nationalist shibboleth. They are utterly misguided. Those people should perhaps ask themselves whether it is in the Scottish national interest to say that the concerns of those whom we represent do not deserve to be heard on an international stage directly from the Parliament. European engagement is critical to Scottish internationalism.
It is a huge cultural challenge for Scotland to become more outward looking and more directly engaged in the world around us. It would be a profound failure of leadership not to assist that process by reaching out beyond our shores to build on the excellent initiatives of Henry McLeish in the United States and of Jack McConnell in Malawi. A Scottish Parliament or Government that simply cedes that international role to others diminishes the role and purpose of a national Parliament.
Finally, I will say something about Scotland's future constitutional status. Last week, I pledged to act wholly and exclusively in the Scottish national interest. I meant that and I stand by it. Accordingly, my focus will be on the priorities of making Scotland a wealthier, smarter, fairer, healthier, safer and greener place to live. The people's mandate is for the Government to work immediately within devolved government to deliver on core domestic policies. I and my cabinet secretaries understand that our job is to work with every member of the Parliament to improve the quality of life of the people of Scotland and to do so with immediate effect. That can be done while also exploring the next stage in Scotland's constitutional journey. The people of Scotland elected a majority of members who stood on a platform of further constitutional evolution. Not all of them stood for independence as we and the Greens did, but they stood for change nonetheless. The Government will explore how best to reflect that reality and engage in a national conversation, not just with the Parliament but with the people of Scotland.
There will be immediate decisions on things that matter, and an early opportunity for all sides in the chamber to engage in the policy debate, which will then be reflected in our legislative programme. The Government will be prepared to listen and learn, and the Parliament will grow in esteem, as in importance, with a vision for the future that will transcend our experience. We should all look forward to what promises to be an exciting journey.
The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised by his statement. I intend to allow approximately 45 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be extremely helpful if members who wish to ask questions pressed their request-to-speak buttons now.
I thank the First Minister for the advance copy of his statement and for his continuing commitment to working together on policies in which we share a common interest. However, it would be useful to have some details about those policies if we are going to work together. Last week, we offered to be a constructive Opposition and to scrutinise the new Scottish Government, but it is hard to scrutinise so little.
We welcome the First Minister's plans for a climate change bill, the focus on renewable energy, the support for the plans of Scottish Power and Iberdrola—not the Government—for the development of their new technology, and the fact that the economy and economic growth remain the Government's top priority. However, we are disappointed that the First Minister's statement included only recycled announcements, contained no timescales or costings and, at the end, proposed nothing less than grandstanding on the international stage.
We will welcome the debates on rates and road tolls, although we will have questions on those matters.
However, if economic growth is the Government's top priority, we have to ask why the First Minister's statement makes no mention of education and skills, apprenticeships, higher education, further education, those not in education, employment or training, early intervention with our youngsters and vocational education. Indeed, he made no mention of the life sciences industry, which it was confirmed this week contributes more than £1 billion to Scottish industry. Nor, for that matter, did he mention the tourism sector, which is threatened by the Government's reorganisation plans.
I have some questions for the First Minister. Two weeks ago, he promised a wind of change in Scottish politics but, at the moment, all that we have been given is a lot of hot air. We would like clarification on the following issues.
First, if there is to be a council of economic advisers, what will be the status of the international advisory board of Scottish Enterprise? Will the international advisory board still exist? If so, will it complement the work of the council of economic advisers?
Secondly, if the economy is the First Minister's top priority, will he abandon his plans for an increase in income tax, which the newly confirmed Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism agreed would be
"naive in a knowledge economy"?
Thirdly, if the First Minister plans to abolish tolls on the Forth road bridge, what plans does he have in place to deal with the 20 per cent increase in congestion that the Forth Estuary Transport Authority predicted would occur?
Fourthly, if the economy is the top priority, will the First Minister confirm whether there are plans—secret or otherwise—to reorganise Scottish Enterprise and associated agencies?
Finally, just two months ago, the First Minister promised to hit the ground running with a plan for his first 100 days in the Scottish Parliament. His statement today includes nothing on transport, crime, health, poverty or housing. There is no legislative programme. In this first week of the new Scottish Executive, we have heard nothing new. Will the First Minister confirm whether those plans for the first 100 days are still the promises of the Scottish National Party? If so, when will he bring them before Parliament?
I will deal with Jack McConnell's questions one by one, but—to paraphrase one of the things that I said last week when I talked about the change that is happening in Scottish politics—I should say that, of necessity as well as of choice, we need a Government that is prepared to listen to the Parliament. If we had announced a legislative programme today when we have no ability to secure support across the chamber for various aspects of it, although such an announcement might have been satisfying to the former First Minister, it would have no legislative effect or effect on the Scottish people. The reason for the five debates that I have outlined is to hear the Labour Party's ideas—and, indeed, other parties' ideas—which I know must and will develop from the election campaign, which they lost, into something more constructive for the Scottish people.
The council of economic advisers will be announced in a statement in the coming weeks that will provide full details, including personnel. From what I have said today—in a fairly lengthy passage—members will have realised that we have in mind something that will have a broader role than that of the international advisory board of Scottish Enterprise.
It is still the Government's objective to abolish the hated and oppressive council tax. As a former maths teacher, Mr McConnell will have done the calculations about the potential parliamentary majority for such a move. I believe that a majority for such a move could well exist, which is why we intend to continue with it. However, it will certainly be a time of delicate balance. We shall require the two parties at least that favour the abolition of the council tax to come to an agreement on our proposals. Otherwise, those who support the council tax and continue to support the oppression of the elderly people of Scotland in particular will carry the day. That will not be of any use to the Scottish people.
We intend to introduce proposals for the reform—indeed the slimming down—and direction of the Scottish Enterprise network. As the former First Minister will know from our manifesto, some aspects of those plans are quite close to the original plans of the Scottish Enterprise leadership before it had to change direction under political pressure from the previous Administration. Equally, there is a strong desire in the business community throughout Scotland to see substantial change in how the enterprise network delivers policy objectives.
It is true that we have made an early announcement about bridge tolls. The parliamentary session started with a Labour MSP complaining that the announcement was too early. Nonetheless, we believe that the proposal can carry the support of the chamber. One of the reasons why I believe that it will carry support is that I am confident that some Labour MSPs, not least those from the kingdom of Fife, can be persuaded to vote for such a sensible initiative if they carry forward what they said in the past.
Based on our studies, we do not envisage a major problem of additional congestion. Overwhelmingly, the representations that we have had—not just from businesses in Fife and elsewhere—are that the bridge tolls are inequitable and unfair and that their abolition will give a substantial boost to the economy of Fife and elsewhere. Therefore, we intend to introduce proposals to abolish the tolls.
I know that as we proceed—although perhaps not in the set pieces in the chamber—we will find even in the Labour Party the realisation that we have to co-operate on policy initiatives to obtain the best benefit for the people of Scotland. As the policy programme is outlined, I know and believe in my heart that the Labour Party will adopt a constructive approach to the new politics of Scotland.
I, too, thank the First Minister for his statement and for the advance copy.
The next four years are about delivery not divorce. When Mr Salmond says in the first line of his statement that
"it is time to get down to business",
I agree. I would like to ask him about the "smaller government" to which he affirmed his commitment last week. What is the reduction in the number of spin doctors, special advisers, civil servants and quangos?
Moving to business, the First Minister announced the proposed appointment of a council of economic advisers, but that begs the question about the role, remit and future of Scottish Enterprise. Is he prepared to adopt the root-and-branch reform that is proposed by the Scottish Conservatives?
The First Minister said that he intends to get Scotland's economy moving by working to remove or reduce the burden of business rates on our small businesses. The only question for business is when—will he confirm that that will be achieved by next April?
I thank the First Minister for his recognition of the role that has been played by the Scottish Conservatives in the debate on drug abuse. As he knows, I have argued that Scotland needs the biggest assault on drugs and crime that the country has ever seen and I advocated a £1 billion investment in the lifetime of this Parliament, including an extra £100 million per year for drug rehabilitation. Will the First Minister match that commitment?
Turning to council tax, we know that the First Minister wants to introduce a local income tax, to which he referred earlier. Today is not the time to rerun the arguments against it, but even if he can get agreement to introduce a local income tax, its implementation is years away. Will he agree today to introduce immediately a pensioners' discount to cut in half the council tax bill for every householder aged 65 and over?
Finally, with reference to the constitution, which the First Minister mentioned at the end of his statement, has he given up on a referendum? Does he agree that there is no need for a white paper?
The answers to Annabel Goldie's last two questions are no, I have not given up on a referendum; and no, I do not agree that there is no need for a white paper. Indeed, I think that we have an excellent opportunity to take our case to the country and to canvass opinion on a wide scale.
Although "root-and-branch reform" is a phrase that could be used for the reform of Scottish Enterprise, my choice would be "sensible reform". I believe that there is support for my proposal to look carefully at Scottish Enterprise's local delivery mechanisms. Given the new circumstances of local government in Scotland—which, as arrangements for council administrations are completed, has a much more varied look, with more balanced representation across the country—we have to ask whether we need local enterprise companies as well as local authority economic development agencies and whether the public interest in Scotland would be better served by having one delivery mechanism with appropriate business input. That would be a useful step forward. It is not quite what Scottish Enterprise originally proposed, but such a delivery mechanism would be much simpler.
As for the council tax, I see some difficulties in the proposal that the Conservatives put forward in the election with regard to equity. Our ambition—as well as persuading the chamber, as we hope, to abolish the tax altogether—is to find a way of freezing council tax over the period. I am sure that that will come as a great relief to many hard-pressed council tax payers across Scotland.
One of the impressive parts of Annabel Goldie's campaign in the recent Scottish elections was the priority that she gave to issues such as drug use and rehabilitation. I certainly commit to work with her in finding a way of increasing the budget for carrying out the important work of addressing a major and abiding social problem that afflicts our country.
I, too, thank the First Minister for providing an advance copy of his statement.
Last week, I assured the First Minister that we would be constructive, and he will not be surprised to learn that we find much to welcome in his statement. In particular, I welcome his positive comments on the role of young people in Scotland; the priority that will continue to be given to Scotland's economy; and the commitment to lower business rates. However, I continue to be concerned about the SNP's environmental credentials and have already expressed opposition to the proposed cancellation of the Edinburgh airport rail link and the Edinburgh trams project.
That said, I want to concentrate on energy policy. I am sure that the First Minister and I agree on what our immediate response should be to the UK energy review which, in my view, was set up for the express purpose of paving the way for a hugely expensive new generation of nuclear power stations. Does he agree that the UK Government is being rather cavalier when it talks about energy stability while proposing to rely on uranium, which will be sourced from some of the most politically unstable countries in the world and will create nuclear waste that will pollute the planet for hundreds of thousands of years?
What about the future of renewable energy in Scotland? We know the scale of the potential. After all, the previous Executive achieved its 18 per cent renewables target three years ahead of time and it is now clear that our subsequent target of generating 40 per cent of electricity from renewables by 2020 will also be met. The Liberal Democrats now want that 2020 target to be increased to 60 per cent. What is the First Minister's target for renewable energy in Scotland? How much electricity does he want to generate from renewable sources and by what date does he want to achieve that target?
The economic potential is clear. The renewables industry can deliver thousands of new jobs and billions of pounds of new investment in Scotland. Indeed, with the opportunity to export our technology worldwide, it could be the oil and gas industry of the future. However, that will not happen if the new Executive puts a moratorium on such developments and creates an energy black hole.
We know that the First Minister is against nuclear power. However, his manifesto also contained words against wind power. He cannot have it both ways. This is a key test for his new Executive. We know that there are enough proposals and applications to allow wind power to replace the idea of building several new nuclear power stations, so why undermine industry confidence by imposing a moratorium? There is a gap between the First Minister's manifesto policy and his credibility on green energy that he needs to bridge. Did he intend to undermine confidence in the Scottish renewables industry with the block on wind power and the attitude of so many of his party's council groups around Scotland, or has he unintentionally threatened the stability that is required to deliver future investment? What is his answer to those questions and, most important, what will he do about the confidence of the Scottish renewables sector?
Today's UK news of a huge public spend on new nuclear power is a blow to the renewables sector. The fact that it has also received the news in Scotland that the new SNP Administration is at best lukewarm on new wind farm developments is a double whammy, and we must act.
Today is a defining day for Scotland's green energy future. The simple question is this: will the First Minister back or block Scotland's renewables industry? Fine words and compliments today will not be enough; what will count is real action by the First Minister.
In a former incarnation, I would have been tempted to say that it was extraordinary of the Liberal Democrats to accuse me of trying to have it both ways. However, in the atmosphere of new politics, I would not dream of making such a suggestion.
To continue in the spirit of new politics, I heard an interview with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday, in which he attacked the Liberal Democrats in exactly the same way that Nicol Stephen's question attacked the SNP. He did so on the basis that if the Liberal Democrats opposed any wind farm development, by definition they were somehow opposed to all wind farm developments, but I do not think that that position holds.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is an Edinburgh resident—he lives in Marchmont—is in favour of wind farms, but I suspect that if a proposal were made for a massive wind farm development on the Meadows in Edinburgh, he would be one of the first people to object to it. That would not mean that he was against wind power; it would just mean that he wanted wind power developments, which have enormous potential, to be properly located, as best fits the needs of the Scottish people.
There is enormous potential for further wind power development in Scotland, but we must also be mindful that natural beauty in our environment is a scarce resource. That means that not every wind farm development will be approved but, like Nicol Stephen, I expect to see a substantial increase in the contribution that wind power makes to the Scottish economy.
I turn to Mr Stephen's question on nuclear power. It has been suggested that nuclear power meets 40 per cent of Scotland's electricity requirements. The reason for that figure is that nuclear power is normally run as base-load—unless, as was the case at Hunterston B recently, the core is being inspected for hairline fractures. It follows from the running of nuclear power as base-load that a very high production figure will be obtained. However, if one examines the installed capacity of the existing power stations in Scotland, the figure for nuclear power is not 40 per cent but 24 per cent. That is almost identical to the contribution that Scotland's renewables already make to our electricity requirements. We know from current plans that in two years' time the renewables industry will provide 27 per cent of the installed capacity, as compared with nuclear power's 24 per cent. I see Scotland's renewables industry having an expanding role.
The basic difference between our position and that of the Liberal Democrats is that they have set a target of renewables meeting 100 per cent of our energy needs. My target is that renewables and green energy will meet 100 per cent of our needs. I think that clean coal, carbon capture and hydrocarbons—which we should take a new look at—are areas in which Scotland is at a substantial advantage.
Where I agree with the former Deputy First Minister is in thinking that it is extraordinary that we should be forced into a debate about new nuclear power stations when we have a comparative economic advantage in wind power, wave power, biomass, biofuel, carbon capture and clean coal technology. The only technology in which we have no comparative advantage whatsoever, and which we would have to import from Canada or France, is nuclear power. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wants to force that on to the agenda, when most of us want to get on with making Scotland not just the renewables but the renewables and green energy powerhouse of Europe.
Now that the party leaders have asked their questions, we will move to open questions. More members than can be called have pressed their buttons, so I ask members to keep their questions as brief as possible and perhaps the answers might reflect the nature of the questions.
It is with delight that I am in a position to welcome everything that the First Minister said today. Indeed, so will my constituents, particularly those who run small businesses, who will welcome the Government's early indication that it will deal with business rates. That policy will have a massively positive impact on the high streets of Scotland's towns and villages. Is the First Minister in a position to expand on what the timetable will be for the removal or reduction of business rates? In particular, can he indicate when those many small businesses may plan the reinvestment of the sums that they currently pay in rates?
I welcome Roseanna Cunningham's comments. We believe that, as the comprehensive spending review figures become available, we will be in a position to make the proposal to which Roseanna Cunningham refers in this calendar year, which will be excellent news for the small business community of Scotland.
I share Roseanna Cunningham's belief that it is time to reclaim the high streets of Scotland's towns, villages and, indeed, cities from hoardings and boardings and give people the chance to establish new small businesses. Cutting overheads and business rates and abolishing business rates for many thousands of small businesses are very much part of that equation.
I thank you both for setting a perfect example.
I do not think that I can match Roseanna Cunningham's effusiveness, so—forgive me—I will not try.
The First Minister will be aware that on the very day that he announced his plans to keep health services local, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde announced proposals that would see the wholesale transfer and centralisation of services away from the Vale of Leven hospital to the Royal Alexandria hospital in Paisley. Given the geography of the west of Scotland, that would patently be absurd; more important, however, it is not in the interest of patient care.
In the spirit of the new politics, I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing's intervention in instructing independent scrutiny of the proposals. I will work with her to try to find alternatives that will result in the retention of services locally. Will the First Minister clarify what weight will be given to patient need and public opinion in assessing proposals about the Vale of Leven hospital? Further, will he, also in the spirit of the new politics, today commit to saving the Vale?
I welcome the sign that the new politics is starting to spread across the chamber. Public opinion and patient views are very much part of the process. I welcome the welcome that Jackie Baillie gave to the new independent process and assessment of the proposals. I know that she realises that, although she obviously and quite properly campaigned for a different Administration, most of the communities in Scotland that are campaigning to save local health care will very much welcome the change of Government.
Will the First Minister acknowledge that tourism has gone through a period of sustained growth, due in part to the reorganisation and rebranding of VisitScotland? Tourism is vital to the Highlands and Islands. Given that tourism is no longer represented in the Cabinet—indeed, the First Minister made no mention of it in his statement today—can he give assurances that he values its contribution to the Scottish economy and that he will not make changes to that successful brand just for the sake of it?
Tourism will be represented by the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism—that is his job. The importance of that is not just in the title, but in the ending of the extraordinary anomaly whereby one of Scotland's great industries—by certain measurements, it is the largest industry in Scotland—was divorced from the enterprise budget. That was an extraordinary situation and is one of the issues that we intend to rectify as we consider enterprise initiatives in Scotland.
Like Roseanna Cunningham, I welcome every word that the First Minister has said. [Applause.] I am always open to support from all parties in such matters.
First, I draw the First Minister's attention to the dreadful inheritance or legacy that he faces of the increasing level of youth unemployment in Scotland and to the need, in making economic growth a high priority, to tackle much more ambitiously than the previous Administration did the grotesque situation in which 35,000 16 to 19-year-olds in Scotland are either without a job, not in education or not in training.
Secondly, again on the aim of promoting economic development, will the First Minister give early attention to considering the expansion of the Scotland House model, which is in place in Estonia and India, as an effective way in which to promote Scottish tourism, technology, investment and exports for the benefit of the Scottish people?
Alex Neil makes an important point. Economic growth is our priority. As I said, that growth must be sustainable and must touch all parts of the Scottish community, both geographically and in terms of social classes.
I welcome the Scotland House model, and not only because I opened Scotland House in Tallinn last year. I was impressed by the interest in the scheme among the Scottish business community and by the cost-effective way in which it is being done, so I look forward to seeing the model spread throughout Europe and to many other major marketplaces in which Scottish businesses are active.
I warmly welcome the First Minister's commitment to abolish the tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges, which, of course, is a policy that featured in the Conservative manifesto and one that will have our support in the Parliament. Earlier in the week, I announced my intention to introduce a member's bill on the issue to encourage the Executive to act—I am pleased to have scored such an early success. When will the First Minister introduce the legislation and on what date will the tolls be abolished?
The member will accept that we must all learn to share throughout the Parliament the plaudits for success. There will be a debate next week on the subject that he raises. He will understand that legislative change is required to abolish the tolls. Rather than squabble over who gets the credit, let us acknowledge that the move will be welcomed widely throughout the Scottish community. Like me, Murdo Fraser will have done the parliamentary arithmetic and will be confident that, although on its own the support of the Government and the Conservative party will not quite be enough to secure the passage of legislation on the issue, we have every reason to suppose that we shall be helped by members of the parties that were not as enthusiastic as we were to see the abolition of the iniquitous tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges.
The First Minister referred to Labour's achievements on renewable energy. Given that a Scottish consortium of universities has reached the shortlist to host the new £1 billion UK energy technology institute, does he agree that his Executive should back Aberdeen to be the hub for the new institute, which would confirm the city's status as the oil and gas and energy capital of Europe? Does he accept that his policy of pulling Scotland out of the UK would mean that Aberdeen would not have the opportunity to benefit from that exciting development?
I hope to see Aberdeen as a European centre for those technologies, and I will certainly back Aberdeen as a centre, wherever the initiative comes from.
I do not want to diminish anyone's contribution to the renewables revolution in Scotland, but in my statement I allocated the prime credit to the former Deputy First Minister, who did more than any other minister to put forward that agenda.
I agree with the First Minister that barriers to business are barriers to national progress. He is aware that the proposed tram and Edinburgh airport rail link projects affect my constituency. The projects are supported by a majority in the Parliament and in the City of Edinburgh Council, and they have the crucial support of the business community in Edinburgh. Can he clarify when announcements will be made about the projects' future, given that he gave some detail in his statement? How much public money has already been spent on the projects?
If the Scottish National Party scraps the projects, how does the First Minister intend to tackle Edinburgh's congestion problems, which are a real burden on the city's businesses, given that EARL is intended to take 1.7 million car journeys off our roads and that the construction of the tramways would encourage up to 50 per cent of weekend car users to switch to tram?
We will bring those matters forward for early consideration by the Parliament. I do not share Margaret Smith's enthusiasm. We reckon that perhaps as much as £100 million has already been spent on the proposals. During the past few days we have been considering how so much money has been spent to so little effect, before any road has been dug up, any brick laid or any part of a railway line completed.
I apologise for the lack of notice given in calling Patrick Harvie, who will be followed by Tricia Marwick.
The First Minister said:
"The future of the western economies in the coming decades will rest on their capacity to fuel economic growth while reducing our impact on the planet."
He went on to describe our environmental aspirations as a "moral imperative". I agree with the latter observation.
Given that economists across the political spectrum acknowledge that the social and environmental impacts of a policy of pursuing everlasting economic growth on a planet of finite resources are often harmful, does the First Minister agree that his council of economic advisers should include expertise on the social and environmental impact of economic activity? Will he ask the council to make an early effort to expand the number of indicators that we measure to do with the health and well-being of our economy, given that the gross domestic product figure tells us only how much money is swilling around and nothing about the social and environmental impact of economic activity?
That is an extremely constructive suggestion—[Interruption.] I do not share the cynicism of certain members of the Parliament, who might or might not still be in denial—we will find out shortly.
Patrick Harvie and I are not in full agreement on the issue, but his suggestion is constructive and it is entirely appropriate that such expertise would be wished for in a council of economic advisers.
I express my joy that the discrimination against the people of Fife will end at long last. Is the First Minister aware that it is 43 years since a Labour Government imposed the tolls on the people of Fife? It has taken the formation of the first SNP Government for an announcement that the tolls will be abolished. Will he join me in thanking The Courier, which has campaigned against the tolls for a year?
Will the First Minister also say whether Mr Gordon Brown, the next Prime Minister, has yet telephoned to congratulate him on his move to abolish the tolls? Mr Brown himself proposed such a measure in a private member's bill at Westminster 22 years ago, but he did not follow through when he was in Government.
Tricia Marwick makes a good point. This is an excellent example of a situation in which the co-operation between me and the current chancellor—perhaps the future Prime Minister—will be more fulsome than the co-operation that he enjoyed with the previous Administration. I can see us marching together on such issues.
Tricia Marwick's presence in the chamber as a constituency member, victories over the Labour Party in the kingdom of Fife by other parties and the general results there indicate that the Labour Party's previous stance on tolls, which I assume is still its policy, was perhaps not the wisest one to take in an election campaign in Fife.
As a reasonable person and in the new spirit of consensus, I congratulate the First Minister, at least on that part of his statement in which he recognised the need for new laws to prevent our children from buying tobacco products, building on the Labour Party's successful ban on smoking in public places. However, I am disappointed that there was little mention in the statement of the things that matter to poor people. I speak specifically about the importance of social housing. Will he assure council tenants in my constituency that the stock transfer and record investment for which they voted overwhelmingly in November will not be delayed or cancelled?
Unlike some parties in the chamber, we believe that the results of referendums—and the holding of referendums—should be acknowledged and supported. The prospects for social housing—and, indeed, for keeping local hospitals open—have dramatically improved in the past few weeks as a result of the change in Administration. Given that Duncan McNeil has belied his reputation as a parliamentary bruiser and has embraced the new politics in such a fulsome way, far be it from me to do anything other than welcome that conversion and congratulate him on it.
As someone else who enthusiastically embraces the new politics—[Laughter.] It was ever thus. I congratulate the First Minister on his positive vision for Scotland. He spoke of the necessity for new, greener energy sources. Is not a real barrier to the development of new energy projects in Scotland the imposition of unfair transmission charges? Does he agree that that inflicts disproportionately high costs on Scotland, while subsidies are provided to increase energy capacity in southern England? What discussions will he initiate to reverse that iniquitous state of affairs?
I welcome those questions from Kenny Gibson. I bear him no ill will for doing more than any other member to keep me off the front pages in the past few weeks. I too will embrace the new politics.
Kenny Gibson's point is fundamentally important. Jack McConnell's suggestion that the proposal for a new generation of clean coal in Scotland had come from a private company—Scottish Power/Iberdrola—is correct. However, one of the key points about which that company, Scottish and Southern Energy and—once the moratorium on charges is lifted in future—the renewables industry in Scotland are concerned is the £100 million of excess charges that have been imposed under the transmission regime of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. Last week, when I discussed the matter with Señor Galán, he pointed out that Ofgem's new transmission loss proposals would put another £25 million of excess charges on Scottish generators.
I undertake to discuss the matter with Scottish Power, Scottish and Southern Energy and our renewables industry and to bring together a common platform that will make an unanswerable case to take to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Ofgem. I am sure that the attempt to remove that blatant discrimination against Scotland's energy industries will be supported by every party and every member in the Parliament.
I welcome the First Minister's commitment to consider ideas from all parties in the Parliament. I am sure that he shares the general concern that exists about the fact that Peter Tobin, who was recently convicted of the brutal murder of Angelika Kluk, was effectively at liberty for a year while on the sex offenders register. Does the First Minister agree that the case highlights flaws in existing legislation? Will he ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to arrange a meeting with me and other interested parties so that we can consider the most effective way of dealing with the issue and taking remedial action, including the publication of photographs of sex offenders who have gone to ground; the use of modern equipment that will assist in tracking them, such as the global positioning system; and the use of lie detection equipment to ascertain where they have been after they have been found?
I will respond constructively to that point. On behalf of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and on my own behalf, I agree to the meeting. Bill Aitken will be aware of the traffic light proposal that we have made to address such concerns. Jack McConnell introduced similar policy proposals, and I know that the Conservative party and others have similar concerns. I readily agree to the meeting. We will see whether we can reach consensus on a proposal that will address the legitimate and serious concerns that Bill Aitken has raised.
In the interests of transparency and openness, will the First Minister publish the calculations or models to which he referred in his statement regarding the impact on congestion of the removal of the tolls on the Forth bridge? What steps does he plan to take to deal with congestion problems? Did he share his calculations with his new friends, the Greens, in their recent discussions? To return to Margaret Smith's question, do we have to wait until next week for him to announce which public transport proposals for Edinburgh his party intends to abandon?
Next week, there will be a debate on our proposal to abolish tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges. By the sound of Des McNulty's question, I ascertain that we will not have his support in that debate but, given the information that we will present to the Parliament, we will have the support of many other members who want to adopt a far more constructive attitude.
I congratulate the First Minister on almost conquering the poor-quality microphones in the chamber. The couple of questions that I have are meant to be helpful. Margaret Smith anticipated some of them, but I listened carefully to his answers. I take it that he did not just forget to mention the Forth crossing in his statement, but that his Government is revisiting the pre-election pledge to get rid of EARL and the trams for Edinburgh. That is what I take from his answer but, if I am wrong, perhaps he could enlighten me.
Will the First Minister arrange for parliamentary time to be given over to a debate on the re-emergence of an EU constitution under Chancellor Merkel's direction? He was right in saying that the Parliament has an international responsibility and a role to play in Europe. It therefore seems logical that, before the Prime Minister demits office, he should know our opinion on the EU constitution before he signs up to it without our having been given a chance to say what we think of it.
I doubt whether it would be reasonable to believe that there has been any change in our attitude towards EARL or the trams project in Edinburgh. We have deep misgivings about those projects and we will present our concerns to the Parliament to explain why we have those misgivings. Equally, I reassure the member that the new Forth crossing is very much in our minds and priorities, and that we intend to bring our support for that initiative to the chamber.
I welcome the points that Margo MacDonald has made about the European debate and the fact that she has broadened questions to include what is happening elsewhere on the continent. Those matters are of fundamental importance to every MSP and community in Scotland. Given the influence that I have with the Prime Minister, I am not certain that a phone call to him would result in the initiative that she wishes. However, if he phones me during his remaining time in office, I will put Margo MacDonald's point to him.
I apologise to those members who were not called.