Plenary, 24 Apr 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, April 24, 2008

Official Report 771KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-698)

Immediately after First Minister's questions, I will attend a meeting of SEER, the Scottish Government's response unit, to ensure that all the consequences of the Grangemouth industrial action are considered so that the impact on the economy and people of Scotland is minimised.

I think that we will all welcome the statement that will be made in the chamber later this afternoon, after relevant meetings have taken place during the day.

Under the First Minister's Government, some people seem to matter more than others: the Trump Organization, Macdonald Hotels and Mr Brian Souter seem to have a special pass to the corridors of power. Is the First Minister running a special access Government?

It is not for me to determine the subject matter of the leader of the Opposition's questions, but just occasionally Wendy Alexander would be wise to rise to the event and occasion that is occupying the interest of the people of Scotland. Perhaps she will get to asking about the Grangemouth dispute in her fourth question, if she bothers to ask one today.

The people Wendy Alexander mentioned have no special access to the Government; the Government operates in the best interests of the Scottish people. In the speech that I made to the Scottish Trades Union Congress on Tuesday—a speech that I think was pretty well received—I could have mentioned that I have met the Scottish Trades Union Congress and its representatives on more occasions than I have met all the organisations that she mentioned put together.

I am not surprised that the First Minister dodged the question. As he knows, the chamber will return to these matters this afternoon, but he has chosen not to speak.

New concerns emerge all the time about what is happening behind closed doors. The recent extension of the contract for the ScotRail franchise involves more than £800 million of taxpayers' money, yet the most basic levels of transparency, scrutiny and accountability were ignored, as was Audit Scotland. This is one of the largest contracts that the First Minister's Government will let, so does he now regret how it was done? Yes or no?

I do not know whether Wendy Alexander was a member of the previous Administration when it negotiated the contract, within which was the means of extension. That extension clause was invoked. As she will be well aware, it was both price and market sensitive, and ministers acted on the basis of advice. I am certain that if they had not operated on the basis of advice, Wendy Alexander would have been the first to come to the chamber and find yet another thing to gripe about.

This week, John Swinney told the unions that he regrets how it was done, but it appears that the First Minister does not. What troubles people is that ministers' justification for the secrecy was that it was to protect FirstGroup's share price. The word that the First Minister just used was "price", but the term that he used last week was "share price".

I know that the First Minister is not a regular user of ScotRail services, as many of the rest of us are, but does he agree—[Interruption.]

Order.

—that the relevant consideration, when £800 million of taxpayers' money is at stake, is the service to passengers, not the return to shareholders?

Wendy Alexander might travel first class, but that wisnae a first-class question.

Does Wendy Alexander regret the clear passenger benefits that the additional £70 million of additional investment in Scotland's rail network will bring, the ability to cap profits and the ability to extend the franchise on much better terms, in the public interest, than those that were negotiated by the previous Administration? Did it ever occur to Wendy Alexander that if her colleagues had done their job when the contract was negotiated, there would have been no need to renegotiate the terms?

We are used to the First Minister going for the insult when all else fails. He knows that the extension of the franchise does not start until November 2011, which is after the next Scottish Parliament elections. Some £800 million of taxpayers' money has been handed over and still we have none of the data that would allow a proper assessment of whether that represents a good deal for the taxpayer. That brings us to the heart of the matter, which involves the unacceptability of the First Minister's cavalier attitude to government. Under his stewardship, we are getting used to the special access, the lack of data, the superficial consultations and the refusal to answer questions.

Scotland does not want a special access Government in which the First Minister is his own judge and jury. The proper mechanism for reviewing ministerial conduct is the ministerial code. It is a necessity for good government. Parliament had demanded a review of the code, which the behaviour of this Administration makes urgent. Why, then, one year after the First Minister came to office, are we still waiting for a review?

I was going to congratulate Wendy Alexander on getting to her fourth question, but, given the nature of it, I do not think that I will bother.

The ministerial code under which we are operating is the code that we inherited from our predecessor Administration. When, in the eight years in which Labour and the Liberal Democrats formed that Administration and Wendy Alexander was a member of the Scottish Parliament, did she make any suggestions about changes to the ministerial code? Not once.

When it comes to obeying terms of reference and codes of conduct, I think that my track record is a lot better than Wendy Alexander's.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-699)

Not everyone seeks special access to the First Minister, Presiding Officer. I can assure you and him that that is a matter of personal taste.

I have no plans at present to meet the Prime Minister, who has no special access to me.

The Grangemouth oil refinery is a pivotal part of Scotland's economy, and I am sure that everyone shares a deep disappointment at the fact that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service talks have broken down. The issue has immense national implications for Scotland. Can the First Minister assure us that the emergency provisions that are in place are sufficient to allow Scotland to operate normally? If not, can he specify where the impact of the strike will hit, to what extent and at what cost?

I thank Annabel Goldie for giving me the opportunity to say some words about the dispute that is occupying the attention of the vast majority of people in Scotland.

At 12.30, there will be a statement from John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in Westminster. At 5 o'clock, there will be a statement in this chamber from John Swinney, which will go into the detailed points of analysis.

Basically, the position is that there are substantial and ample stocks of every variety of fuel, and stocks across the range of available ranges. That is an important factor for people to bear in mind. Those stocks will last well into May, and there is the provision to import more stocks if they are required. Therefore, assuming that consumer behaviour is responsible, there should be limited difficulties in terms of inconvenience and disruption.

We clearly need the public's co-operation in not engaging in repeat buying and we need everyone to behave sensibly and responsibly by cutting out non-essential trips and using public transport. That is wise advice for people in Scotland to take at the present moment. The central message is that stocks of the available range of fuels will stretch into May and that there is the capacity to import more if required.

Over the course of this week, I have spoken many times to management and unions. One thing on which they agreed this morning is that it is not their intention, they insist, either as unions or as management at the plant to impose disruption on the broader community and industry in Scotland. Therefore, in the chamber, we should appeal for responsible behaviour and non-escalation of the dispute. In those circumstances, I think that Scotland can cope with this difficulty.

I thank the First Minister for what I realise is a very considered response.

While accepting that the dispute is not about the right to strike, more and more of the public are now questioning whether the strike is right, given its immense potential—I emphasise potential—for damage to our economy and disruption to essential transport, whatever the intentions of the respective parties. Will the First Minister therefore join me in sending a message from the Parliament that everyone involved in the dispute should calm down, sit down, get back round the table and, in the meantime, call the strike off?

I am sure that that sentiment is shared universally across the Scottish community. [Interruption.]

Order.

One outcome of the ACAS talks that should be welcomed is that the management and trade unions agreed to ensure the safe operation of the plant in a condition that enables it to be restarted as quickly as possible.

Having spoken to the ACAS negotiators on several occasions over the past two days, I say to all members that the relationships between the management and unions in the dispute are clearly very difficult indeed. Unfortunately, over the past two days, a huge amount of time in the negotiations has been occupied not with enabling people to tackle the substantive central issues in the dispute but with who said what to whom, what was on which website, writs and legal action and the consequences of that.

My appeal to members and to the wider community is that, as well as ensuring the provision of essential services such as public transport, which enable Scotland's industry and community to go about their business, no one outwith the dispute should say anything that exacerbates the relationships within the dispute. It is really important that we appeal for calm and for substantial negotiations. We should ask that unions and management use ACAS's facilities to return to the negotiating table as quickly as possible.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-700)

The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of substantial concern and interest to the people of Scotland.

Some petrol stations in Scotland are now restricting supplies and charging more than £1.30 per litre. Does the First Minister agree that that is unacceptable? What will he do about it?

Everyone agrees that any sign of profiteering in times of difficulty is unacceptable. We have looked at the issue in some detail. Price control powers are held under the Energy Act 1976, which comes within the province of the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. It should be said that the detailed evidence suggests that such practices are not as widespread as some press reports might suggest, but I am perfectly willing to discuss the issue in the many discussions that we are having with the secretary of state. From what he told me this morning, he does not see the requirement to use any of his range of emergency powers because the stocks position is adequate at present. However, if we receive substantive evidence of widespread profiteering, I am perfectly willing to put to him the point that he should use the powers that he holds.

People throughout Scotland are dismayed and angry at the crisis and the profiteering. The First Minister has just said that there is ample fuel and has called for normal purchasing. Does he not know that that stopped several days ago? There are now long queues, empty fuel tanks and high prices. The situation is anything but normal. Will ministers stop saying that they have it all under control? Has the First Minister driven home the case to get prices capped, as I asked him to do on Monday? Will he stop ministers pretending that they have secured ample supplies? People want real action from the Government, not empty promises that everything is normal. People are genuinely worried. What is the First Minister doing to stop the rip-off and to keep Scotland moving?

The first thing that I would do is not behave as Nicol Stephen has just behaved. The second thing that I would do is listen to the answer to his first question. The powers that he talks about are held under the Energy Act 1976. A little bit of research before he asked his first question might have been helpful, and a little bit of listening before he asked his second question might have been helpful.

If evidence emerges, I am prepared to discuss the matters that Nicol Stephen has raised. Everyone in the chamber would attack and deprecate profiteering. I hope that people will look at the situation that we face together, as a community, as the impacts of such a dispute will be felt by the entire community. I hope that we can also welcome the limited progress that has been made by the management and the union regarding the condition and safety of the plant, which is crucial if it is to be brought back into production in days rather than weeks.

We should acknowledge the fact that provision has already been made to supply and support fuel stocks throughout Scotland and we should appeal for calm and responsibility across the Scottish community rather than add to people's concerns.

I will take a question from Cathy Peattie, within whose constituency Grangemouth lies.

Given the fact that the BP/Ineos workforce has always shown great commitment to the future of Grangemouth and the fact that there has not been a strike for 70 years, will the First Minister join me in supporting the 1,200 workers who, despite their reluctance, have voted by an overwhelming majority to take action to safeguard the pensions of future employees in the face of a company that has singled out the site and is aggressively pursuing confrontation? I spoke to the trade union that is involved in the ACAS discussions this morning. It is the company that keeps refusing to discuss matters. Will the First Minister stand up for Scotland and for the workers of Grangemouth?

I have spoken to the union and its representatives on several occasions this week. They were pleased with and supportive of the Scottish Government's offer of the services of the president of the Faculty of Actuaries to assist with conciliation in order to take some of the heat out of the dispute and to introduce the opportunity for substantive discussions. Making such offers is the responsible way for a Government to behave.

We could all list a range of press statements, assumed writs, attacks and things that appear extraordinary that have exacerbated the situation. We, as politicians, should be trying to get an honourable settlement and to ensure that the Scottish economy can work effectively and as normal.

---

Grangemouth Oil Refinery

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government is having with management and unions at the Grangemouth oil refinery. (S3F-703)

The Scottish Government has spoken with representatives of Ineos and Unite at various stages over the past few days—most recently, within the past two hours—to encourage the management and the union to resolve their disagreement urgently and constructively.

I thank the First Minister for his answers to my question and to those that have been asked before. I also thank him for the efforts of the Scottish Government in recent days to bring the parties in the dispute together and to allay the concerns of the people of Scotland.

The First Minister has confirmed that the constructive offer of the services of Stewart Ritchie, the president of the Faculty of Actuaries, remains on the table. How will the Government encourage the management and unions at Grangemouth to take up that offer?

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, I have spoken to the ACAS conciliators—they do an excellent job and we should all applaud their efforts—who were highly frustrated that only very late in yesterday's discussions, after two days of discussions, were the two sides able to move on to the substantive issue because so much time and energy had been taken up with a range of extraneous material. I hope and believe that if we can prevent the escalation of this dispute and if the atmosphere can cool down, the variety of initiatives and suggestions that ACAS has made, of which our offer of the services of the president of the Faculty of Actuaries is one, will help management and unions to come together and find an honourable settlement.

The First Minister and I had a minor disagreement last summer about the way in which he kept Opposition parties informed during the emergency services' work following the terrorist activity at Glasgow airport. That was early in his Administration and I understand that the procedures might not have been understood. I ask him today for his assurance that Opposition parties, through their leaders, will be kept informed of developments as the work of the emergency room and emergency team continues over the next few days.

I am happy to give that assurance. After last Sunday's meeting of the emergency committee, all the leaders of the Opposition parties were written to and offered talks on the Government's contingency planning provisions. That offer was taken up by Iain Gray, and it may well have been taken up by others. The offer will stand throughout the difficulty and the potential disruption. I agree with my predecessor that it is important that a Government, when managing emergencies, opens that facility to the Opposition parties.

---

Student Hardship

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Executive is taking to tackle student hardship. (S3F-710)

As Claire Baker knows, the Scottish Government has put in place a number of policies to help students and tackle student hardship. We have introduced a £38 million package of grants for part-time learners in higher education, thus removing the need for them to rely exclusively on student loans. We are increasing the threshold for the non-medical personal helpers element of the disabled students allowance by 60 per cent. We are providing £12 million per annum to institutions to alleviate student hardship. We have introduced a fairer means test in further and higher education to ensure that support is targeted where it is needed most. We have made £30 million available for 2010-11 to support students further, which is part of the consultation that is taking place. In addition, of course, and in the teeth of opposition from the Labour and Conservative parties acting in concert, the Scottish Government has removed the graduation tax—the tax on learning—and reintroduced the concept of free education in Scotland.

In reality, the First Minister's Government has done little to boost levels of support for today's students while they are studying. Bursaries have stalled under this Government, and now we see that its flagship policy of a local income tax would make working students worse off. That policy would hit the least well-off the hardest.

Last week, the First Minister did not seem clear on the point that students are exempt from council tax. While that does not inspire confidence in his preparation for a local income tax, can the First Minster explain why he feels students should pay his local income tax when they are exempt from council tax?

Claire Baker should be aware that the vast, overwhelming majority of students in Scotland—some 400,000—are liable for the council tax. Of those who are not, around 160,000—the vast majority—do not earn enough to have to pay the local income tax. We should consider for a second what would happen to someone who had to pay in council tax the £2,300 that they have saved on the graduation fee, which was supported by Claire Baker. They would have to earn almost £100,000 in a year to make up for that. I do not know many students in Scotland who earn £100,000, but maybe Claire Baker does.

How does the financial burden on students in Scotland compare with that in other areas of the United Kingdom?

The list of measures that the Government has introduced to support students is so long that I could tell that the Presiding Officer was becoming restive as I went through it. None of those measures is available to students south of the border, which is why I suspect that if any students in the town of Berwick took part in the local television poll there, that was one factor in why the whole town wanted to return to Scotland.

Will the First Minister confirm that current legislation, which a Conservative Government introduced, says that students are exempt from the council tax?

No—I cannot confirm that. The member does not know his own Government's legislation. I have just said that the vast majority of students in Scotland are liable for the council tax.

No.

Oh yes they are. Perhaps the Conservative party overlooked that in the pantomime of its Governments.

The First Minister mentioned changes to the eligibility criteria for bursaries for students in further education and higher education, which were announced without consultation. In written answers, the Government has said that it did not model the impact of those changes, but a Government question and answer document and ministerial lines to take, which were released under freedom of information legislation, highlight that the change would adversely affect three cohorts of students—students in single-parent families, students with cohabitee partners and lone-parent students.

Briefly, please.

I will quote the Q and A briefly. It says:

"Introducing the means test in a ‘Big-bang' approach will result in more savings over the medium term."

In paragraph 14—

Very briefly, please, Mr Purvis.

—it says:

"There could therefore be an increase in the number of applications to the Hardship Funds in these … circumstances."

Will the First Minister ensure that students who have started their university degree or college qualification course will not be affected mid-term by the changes? Should not the changes have been consulted on?

We have put in place hardship funds to deal with exactly that contingency. Despite all his criticisms, the member found it in himself to vote in favour of abolishing the graduate endowment, so perhaps—in that constructive mode for which the Liberal Democrats are famed—he might also find it in himself to welcome all the other measures to support the hard-pressed students of Scotland.

---

Energy Strategy

I ask this question in a constructive mode.

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will produce a comprehensive energy strategy for Scotland. (S3F-705)

In a constructive mode, I say that the Scottish Government's focus on sustainable economic growth provides a clear framework for our approach to energy, which is to reduce carbon emissions and contribute to Scotland's wealth.

We have taken action to promote clean, green energy and reduced consumption. The Government's actions have produced, for example, a commitment from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets and the National Grid to a review of transmission charging, 13 determinations for energy-generation developments, the saltire prize for marine renewables and the tripling of funding for community generation and microgeneration. When Jim Mather sets out our strategy in the coming weeks, he will have a great deal to talk about—achievements not just in the future, but in the present.

I welcome several of the initiatives that the First Minister has mentioned, but does he acknowledge that the Royal Society of Edinburgh said that a Scottish energy strategy was needed by the end of 2007? Does he agree with Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce that businesses throughout Scotland are questioning the coherence of the Scottish Government's position on energy? Will he concede that his colleague, Alyn Smith MEP—taking a break from threatening lifeline ferry services to my constituency—was right to call for a coherent energy strategy? Does he realise that although he has shed light on what he is against, without a comprehensive energy strategy we all remain in the dark about how the Government intends to address the serious energy challenges that we face?

As Liam McArthur is interested in such things, I am sure that he has read the energy policy document that Stephen Salter compiled for the Scottish National Party in the run-up to the elections. On such important matters, we decided to be prepared to fight the campaign on substantive policy initiatives, which is why we have managed to introduce the many measures that Liam McArthur welcomed.

Because we have so fundamentally accelerated—by a factor of four—the previous Administration's rate of acceptance and determination of energy projects, I can be extremely confident that the Government will more than match its targets of 31 per cent renewable electricity generation by 2011 and 50 per cent by 2020. Those targets are ambitious but, in light of the policies that I have outlined, achievable for Scotland.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—