Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00293)
Carrying forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
At a time like this, we should all be focused on jobs and the economy but, week by week, more and more questions are raised about Scotland’s future—about European Union membership, the euro, defence policy, defence contracts, NATO membership, International Monetary Fund membership, renewables investment, pensions and benefits. The First Minister has no credible answers and the uncertainty is corrosive. Why can he not steady the ship by deciding on a date for his referendum?
On the referendum, I thought that what we would do is to stick to the policy that we outlined in the election campaign, which as I remember was quite successful. That is to say that we would hold the referendum on Scottish independence in the second half of this parliamentary term. My submission would be that, if we changed that, Iain Gray and others would come to the chamber and denounce us for being elected with an overwhelming majority under false pretences. Why does the Scottish National Party not carry on with its policy of keeping faith with the Scottish people on the basis that the Scottish people have kept faith with the Scottish National Party?
That excuse does not really wash any more, does it? The timeline is something that he blurted out off the top of his head when he was in a corner in a television debate in Perth—I was there. It is not in his manifesto, no matter how many times craven back benchers try to pretend that it was. Everyone knows the real reason why he will not name the date: opinion polls such as this week’s, which showed that 72 per cent of Scots do not support separation. Is that not why he cannot decide on a date?
We have had a range of opinion polls and they have shown substantial and increasing support for independence for Scotland.
Iain Gray gives the game away, because the reason why he talks about separation is that he is frightened of the concept of Scottish independence. All I can say to him is that, given the electoral track record, I think that our interpretation of the wishes of the Scottish people has been validated more often than Iain Gray’s interpretation has. The Government was first elected in 2007 and it was re-elected with a massive majority six months ago. We were elected on a perspective that would offer the people of Scotland the right to determine our constitutional future in a referendum on Scottish independence. That is exactly what we will do, and that consistency of purpose is one of the reasons for the overwhelming success of the Scottish National Party.
The reason why Alex Salmond talks about normal countries, devo max, indy light and fiscal autonomy is that he is scared to talk about separation, which is what he supports.
Listen—if we cannot have a date because he cannot decide on a date, surely we can agree on the rules. I assume that the First Minister wants an honest and fair referendum, so any right-thinking person would think that the Electoral Commission should oversee it. It regulates elections to the Scottish Parliament and it scrutinises elections and referenda all over the world. Sir David Steel thinks that we should use it—[Interruption.]
Order.
George Reid thinks that we should use it, and he is a lifelong nationalist. Why is the First Minister so scared of having the Electoral Commission scrutinise his referendum?
When we set out the referendum bill, I assure you that it will pass even Iain Gray’s test of fairness and impartiality. Of course it will be scrutinised and it will be balanced, and it will be balanced by authorities that are accountable to this Parliament. That is an important thing for parliamentary democracy.
Iain Gray does not have to quote Liberal Democrats. I will quote a few Labour figures’ comments on the arguments that I present:
“the SNP clearly stated that any referendum would be held later in the life of this parliament. That’s what many Scots voted for, that’s what gave Mr Salmond his majority and that’s the mandate which the SNP has ... It’s absurd now to ask him to break one of his flagship promises the minute the Scottish Parliament reconvenes just because it might be politically convenient for those who oppose independence.”
That was said by Hugh Henry MSP. [Applause.]
Order.
I have a range of quotes on the issue that stretch back to one of my predecessors, Henry McLeish and, lo, unto Malcolm Chisholm writing in The Scotsman this very morning. Once Iain Gray manages—in the few weeks that remain to him as leader—to organise his party to support his view, he can then come and tell me what that view is.
I really think—[Interruption.]
Order.
I really think that David Steel and George Reid know a little bit about accountability to the Scottish Parliament—they were both Presiding Officers of it.
I say as gently as possible to the First Minister that, before I finish my job, perhaps I will get him to listen to the question. I asked him what the date will be. If it will be in 2014, 2015 or 2016, that is fine—just tell us what it is. The longer this goes on, the more it looks as if Alex Salmond is trying to rig the referendum to get the result that he wants.
A couple of weeks ago, the First Minister said that he would bring Scotland’s claim of right to the Parliament to reaffirm it. It says that the people have the right to decide
“the form of Government best suited to their needs”.
I tell him that Labour will have no trouble with that—we have already signed the claim of right. He is the one who could not put his name to it. Why? Because he has always put party before principle. Is that not why he cannot name a date in the first half, second half or any half of the parliamentary session?
I welcome Iain Gray’s clear statement about a referendum in the second half of the parliamentary session—I think that he said that that was fine. We shall hold him and his successor to that commitment.
I responded to Iain Gray’s questions on which he wanted me to be specific. Through an excellent quote from Hugh Henry, I pointed out that some people in the Labour Party recognise that that party lost the election and must accept the mandate from the Scottish people. One of my predecessors, Henry McLeish, has written about that this week. In relation to the attempted sabre-rattling from the Conservatives, aided and abetted by—perhaps in cahoots with—the Labour Party, the former First Minister said:
“It’s a Scottish matter and the mischief making that we’ve seen at Westminster isn’t of any help. Westminster should keep out of the referendum and not meddle.
How can anyone at Westminster be so divorced from reality to deliver an insult to the Scottish people in this way and to heap contempt upon them.
It would be insulting and contemptuous to the Scottish people for Westminster to get involved and anyone suggesting this at Westminster needs to grow-up instead of ranting in an anti-Scottish way.”
I fully endorse Henry McLeish’s comments.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00280)
I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the immediate future.
In March, Robert Foye and Morris Petch—two vile rapists of teenagers and children—had their minimum sentences cut. Such was the outrage that the Scottish National Party Government promised to do something about it. In the eight months since, it has happened time and time again: in May, Neil Strachan’s minimum sentence was cut and, last week, James Rennie’s minimum sentence was cut. They are two of the most sickening paedophiles, whose cases have shocked Scotland. They are among a string of sex offenders who could be free much earlier than their trial judges intended.
In March, the Scottish Government said that it might change legislation to stop minimum sentences being cut, but in September that was absent from the legislative programme. Why is it taking so long?
It is not. I think the Conservative leader has been misinformed. The criminal cases (punishment and review) (Scotland) bill—Petch and Foye—will be introduced into the Parliament by the end of this month.
I read the quotes from the justice minister at the weekend to that effect. It seems like it has taken headlines such as “Call This Justice?” to prompt them—that should not be the case.
These cases point to a much greater issue. There are some crimes that are so heinous, so cruel and so vile, and some criminals who deserve never to be free again, whose victims demand real punishment and from whom society deserves real protection.
In England, criminals can be sentenced to a whole-life tariff—in other words, they will never be free. Why is it that Scotland does not have the same protection as England? I know that the Scottish Government hides behind the European convention on human rights, but change starts with political will. I have the political will to ensure that, in some cases, life should mean life. The key question is, does the First Minister?
There are three things to say. One is that the bill that Ruth Davidson asked about will resolve the issues raised by the Petch and Foye judgments, so that courts regain appropriate discretion in setting the punishment parts of discretionary life sentences and orders for lifelong restriction. Of course, the legislation cannot impact on current cases—it cannot apply retrospectively, as I am sure Ruth Davidson understands—but it will stop future cases arising where the punishment part of the sentence is reduced on appeal. I hope that the whole chamber will be able to support it when it comes forward later this month.
Secondly, Ruth Davidson should acknowledge that the efforts that have been made, through legislation and administration, on the management and control of sex offenders are second to none. The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 further strengthened the management of those arrangements. The Dundee pilot is now being rolled out across the whole country. In fairness, I do not think that it is reasonable not to acknowledge the strength of the action that is being taken by this Parliament on a matter of great concern.
Thirdly, one cannot just wave away the European convention on human rights. What would be appropriate would be to get unity across this Parliament in saying that this Parliament—our national Parliament—should stand in relation to that act as every other Parliament does. As Ruth Davidson may know, we are at a very substantial disadvantage at the present moment in that we are not given time and effect to respond to court or convention decisions. That is totally unreasonable and leads to bad cases and bad law in Scotland. I hope that, given her statement, she will support the aim and intention of this Government to see our national Parliament stand in equality with other legislatures before that convention.
I call Alex Fergusson to ask a constituency question.
Tomorrow, the First Minister will visit my constituency to open the new Stena Line port at Loch Ryan. I know that he will join me in welcoming the investment that that represents, but does he also recognise that Stena’s move leaves the town of Stranraer with what is effectively an industrial wasteland at its waterfront? Will he ensure that every available resource from his Government is put at the disposal of the local authority in its efforts to implement the excellent regeneration master plan that it has put together to breathe some much-needed new life into the town?
I know that, as the local member, Alex Fergusson will welcome the investment in port Ryan and the south-west of Scotland. It is a huge and substantial investment that consolidates the future of the ferry service as a euro route and will maintain many, many jobs in the south-west of Scotland.
I recognise that the move to port Ryan causes challenges for Stranraer but, as the local member knows—because we have discussed the issue—there are also substantial opportunities at that port front, which I think is an unrivalled location for a series of developments that offer great promise. I compliment the local authority and the others involved for their vision in putting forward those plans and proposals, and I can give them the assurance that this Government will be fully engaged and involved in bringing the plans to reality.
Given that the United Kingdom Government has confirmed that full details of implementation of the basing review will not now emerge until April 2012 and in view of the disquiet that the delay is causing the community in Leuchars, what representations is the Scottish Government making to the UK Government?
The Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence signalling the Scottish Government’s continuing concern over the timescale for providing our communities with further information and reassurance on military base changes. Mr Crawford has requested a meeting with the secretary of state to discuss that and other defence matters. As far as Scotland is concerned, the defence review had some hard decisions, but there was also some satisfaction with other aspects. In a hugely difficult situation, some gains were won. However, after that difficult process, which resulted in hard decisions that have caused tough choices for communities such as Leuchars, it would be totally insupportable if the timetables that were envisaged and set out earlier this year were not held to. It is entirely reasonable that this Parliament should insist that, having had that difficult defence review and given the decisions inherent within it, the timetable should now be supported and maintained.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00285)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
In an independent Scotland, would soldiers serving in United Kingdom regiments be required to leave the British Army and join the Scottish Army?
The short answer is no. Soldiers in that position would have a straight choice. I do not know whether Willie Rennie is familiar with the fact that there are regiments in the British Army in which citizens of the Irish Republic serve as proud members.
We should have a Scottish defence force, for a number of overwhelming reasons. First, as we have just been discussing, there has been no security in defence jobs in Scotland with the present position—just the opposite, in fact. The second reason is that I and many members of this Parliament across the parties—and, at one time at least, many members of the Liberal Democrats—believe that the location and siting of weapons of mass destruction on the soil of Scotland is totally and utterly unacceptable.
The First Minister is correctly quoting from his “Talking Independence” document, which says that
“all serving military personnel from Scotland ... will be given the opportunity to transfer to the Scottish Defence Force.”
I met British soldiers in Afghanistan. They risk their lives every day for each other, no matter which part of the UK they come from. It is a strong, human bond, built on loyalty. The First Minister wants them to break that bond for his independence agenda. Why does he want them to choose between their colleagues and their country?
By definition, what Willie Rennie puts forward is a very false perspective. He should be talking about giving people additional choices, not removing choices from people. I would say to Willie Rennie that the soldiers, including veterans of Afghanistan, who are being made redundant by his Government just now are facing no choice whatsoever.
We all face difficult choices in public administration. There are hugely difficult choices—I do not negate that fact. However, I have never before heard of a Government sacking people when they are engaged in fighting for this country. That is something that is unique to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats at Westminster.
The straight answer to Willie Rennie’s question is that we are offering additional choices.
I have no insight into the voting habits of Scottish soldiers but, given the results in constituencies in which the issue has a substantial impact, I have every reason to believe that military families and personnel voted for the SNP in overwhelming numbers last May.
Economy (Representations to the United Kingdom Government)
To ask the First Minister what representations the Scottish Government has made to the UK Government on the economy. (S4F-00291)
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 16 November, calling on him to use the autumn statement to take urgent action to support economic recovery.
It is now abundantly clear that UK recovery has been much more disappointing than the chancellor hoped that it would be when he outlined his economic plans in June 2010, and there is an urgent need for a change of approach.
We are calling for new support for capital investment, improved access to finance for small and medium-sized companies and action to enhance the economic security of the population at large. That includes the proposal for an increase of £2 billion in capital spending over the next three years, which could help to support 9,000 jobs in Scotland.
I am aware that John Swinney, the cabinet secretary, also wrote to the UK chancellor about the chancellor’s strange comments about investment in Scotland, and that no reply has been received other than a somewhat hysterical letter from Danny Alexander. Does the First Minister share my concern that, while the UK Government should be concentrating on its own economic policies, it is instead putting investment in Scotland at risk?
We dealt with this subject last week when we looked for the motivations behind the chancellor’s curious remarks, and we alighted upon Conservative Party lobbying in the north-east of England. The fact is that, in contrast to the UK chancellor, who could not name a single company, we can name a range of international companies—added to last week with the opening of Amazon and the announcement about Dundee being the factory of the future for Michelin—such as Doosan, Gamesa, Mitsubishi and all the rest who have declared their confidence in Scotland’s future. Given that those major international companies are voting with their investment in Scotland, is it too much to expect other parties at Westminster to display the same confidence in Scotland’s prospects instead of talking them down?
Does the First Minister support this week’s announcement by the coalition about the reducing of employment rights? If he does not, has he or have any of the Scottish ministers made representations to the UK Government to that effect?
I am concerned by what I have seen about those proposals, although I do not think that they have been fully enunciated yet. I read with great care some of Vince Cable’s comments on the issue. We are considering them and will respond as soon as we can properly analyse the detail.
However, instead of this Parliament and Government being organisations that lobby the United Kingdom, perhaps the real solution is for this Parliament to have the power to make the decisions for ourselves.
At the weekend, the SNP announced six key measures that it wants the UK Government to take. How much additional borrowing will be required to pay for those six key measures?
The additional borrowing for capital investment will be £20 billion. That will be mitigated by the returns from crucial investments.
If we look at the signals that business is calling for from the United Kingdom Government, we see that encouraging investment in infrastructure is the overwhelming, number one demand. Business is not calling for things like cuts in the top rate of income tax, as supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of the key problems facing the country and anyone who is looking at it is the lack of economic growth. That is a major concern. It is not possible to get borrowing and the deficit under control unless we are prepared to stimulate the economy and generate economic growth, hence the call for capital investment, which is widely supported across the range of interest groups in this country.
When we are evaluating what should and should not be done to control deficits, Mr Swinney, who has contributed not one penny to the borrowing and deficits of the United Kingdom and has lived within a fixed budget for the past four years, speaks with more authority than any Tory or Labour chancellor.
On the co-operation that might or might not exist between the Treasury and the finance departments of the devolved Administrations, given the state of the euro, exemplified by Germany’s failure to sell all its bonds yesterday, I am concerned that this Parliament might not be properly informed by Her Majesty’s Treasury about the effects on the Scottish economy, and I think that the same fears might be voiced in Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to their economies. Does the First Minister plan to do anything about that?
There is a meeting of the British-Irish Council on Monday, at which we will take our regular opportunity for dialogue with the other devolved Administrations. Margo MacDonald will know that, twice in the past few months, the devolved Administrations have come together to put forward an alternative economic prospectus. We demand and request proper information from the UK Treasury. On some occasions we get it and on others we do not. For example, we have asked whether there will be consequentials to the housing investment that the Prime Minister apparently announced earlier this week, but we have not had a clear answer yet, which perhaps indicates that it was not that much of a clear policy. Nonetheless, like the other devolved Administrations, we hope and believe that we will get answers.
There was a great deal of profound common sense in the joint declaration that the devolved Administrations made earlier this year. Given the direction of travel—or lack of it—in the UK economy since then, the chancellor could do a lot worse than listen to the joint, united voices of the many political parties that are represented in the three devolved Administrations.
Ports (Security Checks and Policing)
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will ensure that proper security checks and policing are in place at ports. (S4F-00295)
As the member will be aware, many aspects of ports security, such as immigration, aviation and maritime security, are reserved matters, while responsibility for policing is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. In recognition of the vital importance of ensuring that our major ports and airports are policed accordingly, the Scottish Government has provided Scottish police forces with funding of £7.8 million in 2011-12 to support their operations, which is an increase of £1.6 million in comparison with funding in the final year of the outgoing Administration.
The First Minister will be aware, as we have heard, that the Stena Line ferry service to Belfast has moved from Stranraer to the newly developed port at Cairnryan. Is he aware of the on-going local concerns about security, given the double whammy of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to axe funding for ports police officers and last year’s decision by the Scottish Government to axe 11 police officer posts, which could be followed by more? I expect that he will have discussed the matter with the UK Government, but what steps is he taking in the interests of this country’s security to ensure that his Cabinet Secretary for Justice makes good the cuts that he authorised to police control at the ports?
The responsibility for those matters lies with the UK Border Agency. At present, they are reserved matters.
On policing, I think that even Johann Lamont would agree that our position on police numbers in Scotland is a substantial advance on anything that the Labour Party could possibly have imagined, given that it forecast that we would not have 1,000 additional police officers and now we have them. There should be general recognition of that fact, along with the fact that we have a 30-year low in recorded crime.
I was trying to speak positively to Johann Lamont, which is sometimes difficult—[Interruption.] No, it is possible, and we will do it.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice met the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, David Ford, the UK Border Agency, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary to discuss the security of sea crossings between Scotland and Northern Ireland. The cabinet secretary has agreed to look favourably at Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary’s request for four additional officers, and the Scottish Government and the police service will continue to review ports policing in the run-up to the creation of a single Scottish police service.
In addition to the many other things that it will deliver, the single Scottish police service will be extremely helpful on ports security, in the sense that Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary is one of the smaller police forces in the country and such demands can be extremely onerous on a small police force. I hope and believe that Johann Lamont, in the positive spirit in which she approaches all her questions, will welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has agreed to look favourably at enhancing and increasing the police service at the ports, even against the backdrop of the disgraceful cutbacks of the UK Border Agency.
Payroll Costs (Temporary Staff)
To ask the First Minister to what extent attempts by the Scottish Government to reduce its payroll costs through reductions in the number of its permanent staff are being undermined by the increased use of temporary staff. (S4F-00290)
They are not being undermined.
The fact is that last year there was a £12 million overspend in the part of the budget that deals with the cost of voluntary redundancy and the employment of agency and other temporary staff to plug gaps arising from a reduction in the number of permanent staff. So-called efficiency savings are turning out to be inefficiency savings as they lead to rising costs under other budget headings. Can the First Minister assure us that expenditure on agency, temporary and seconded staff will have fallen when this year’s figures are finalised and will continue to fall over the period of the spending review?
I am tempted just to say yes, because it has.
I actually saw the rather misleading article in The Times newspaper. I may be being unfair to The Times—it may have been Mr McLetchie who gave the article to it. The point is this: the other staff costs include the cost of voluntary redundancy schemes. We have had a substantial increase in the figures for voluntary redundancy schemes, but I am sure that this Parliament would want us to treat people in that situation fairly—and that has resulted in the increase.
The administration budget for temporary staff reduced by 50 per cent. I will just repeat that for Mr McLetchie’s benefit: it reduced by 50 per cent in 2010-11 compared with the previous year. Even Mr McLetchie, joining Johann Lamont in his optimism, will agree that a 50 per cent reduction fits the bill for the Conservative Party in Scotland, since that is approximately the reduction in its support in the past few years.
That ends First Minister’s question time. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.