First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00911)
Yesterday I had the great pleasure of meeting the Ambassador of El Salvador and today I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
I would like to ask the First Minister a familiar question about whether a separate Scotland would be a member of the European Union. It is a question that Andrew Neil asked him on 4 March:
“Have you sought advice from your own Scottish law officers in this matter?”
Starting his answer with the words, “We have, yes,” could the First Minister get to, “No, we haven’t,” in 27 words?
The 27 words that Johann Lamont refers to are, of course, the words that were taken out of the Labour Party press release. I do not think that it is a great argument to attack the probity of Government when you remove 27 words from your press release. It is not the most ingenious tactic, even from the Labour Party.
Yes, of course, an independent Scotland will be a member of the European Union.
Yesterday, the member of the European Parliament, Catherine Stihler, wrote to me to ask me to formally investigate whether the ministerial code had been broken in relation to the existence and content of legal advice on Scotland’s continued membership of the European Union. I confirm to the chamber that today I have agreed to that request by referring the matter to the independent panel of advisers on the ministerial code.
Because the matter touches on an area of the code that relates to the law officers’ prerogative in terms of the existence and content of legal advice, and our two members of the panel are both distinguished former Lord Advocates, on the advice of the permanent secretary I have invited Sir David Bell to join the independent panel of advisers. Sir David is vice chancellor of the University of Reading and a former permanent secretary of the United Kingdom Department for Education. He will lead the investigation into this matter.
The findings of the independent advisers will be made public. I will accept them and I hope that all members of this chamber will do the same. I observe that there have been five references since I have been First Minister and that each one has found in favour that the ministerial code has been abided by. I hope that on this sixth occasion, given that I have said that I will accept the findings, the Opposition parties will find themselves able to do the same.
In among all that, the First Minister astonishingly asserted what Scotland’s position would be in Europe post independence. That is despite the fact that in five and a half years he has not asked the question and that he now tells us that, when he gets the answer, he will not share it with us.
The First Minister talks about the interview and the 27 words. I have the transcript here. The First Minister seems to be asking the people as Marx—Groucho Marx, that is—asked before him:
“Are you going to believe me or the evidence of your own eyes?”
I suppose that you cannot expect a straight answer from a First Minister who is as straight as a corkscrew, but let us try again. Why did the First Minister—[Interruption.]
Order.
Listen to the question.
Why did the First Minister say that he had sought advice from the law officers when he had not? Why did he give that impression to this chamber and why did he go to court at our expense to stop the release of advice that he knew did not exist?
Of course, if that had been the case, the Labour Party would not have found it necessary to omit 27 words across three answers from its statement.
Let me see if I can explain the point to Johann Lamont. In terms of asking for specific advice on a legal question from law officers, you are bound by the ministerial code in terms of not revealing not only the content of the advice but its existence. Many times in this chamber—and I will cite them for Johann Lamont if she wishes—I have upheld that.
However, there is a second, quite different process. Every major document published by this Government is underpinned by law officers’ advice. When asked for specific advice, the law officers give their opinion on what is legal; with regard to the underpinning of documents, they will point out anything that is obviously against the law. That is the difference, and it is a distinction that I have made a number of times in this chamber. It is absolutely clear when we read the full interview with Andrew Neil that what is being talked about is in terms of both the debate and the documents. That is why that section of the interview finishes with the comment that the documents that have been published are
“consistent with the legal advice that we received”.
That is exactly the format of what was said.
In terms of the Government’s defending the ministerial code through court action, I have been doing a little bit of research and now find that in the two years that the Labour Party was bound by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 it took five cases to the Court of Session to defend these principles and on disclosure. That compares with the two cases that we have taken to court in five years. I say as gently as I can to Johann Lamont—who was a member of that litigious Government in the Labour Party—that those who take five cases in two years to the Court of Session are in no position to preach to other people about the allocation of public money.
I have to say to the First Minister in the gentlest of terms that, given the seriousness of the charges that have been made to him, the idea that that constitutes any kind of answer is completely ludicrous. The people of Scotland need to trust what he says and, on that performance, they certainly do not. He says, “We can’t say that we are even asking for advice”—but the Deputy First Minister stood here on Tuesday and said that she was asking for that advice. Why does it have to be secret?
This is the reality about what is a serious issue. The First Minister wants an honest debate about what is going to happen to the future of Scotland so he starts it by asserting—and he did it again today—that we would be in the EU but would not have to join the euro. However, the First Minister does not actually know that because in five and a half years he has not asked. Yesterday, the Spanish foreign secretary said that Scotland would have to apply to be in the EU and would be at the back of the queue. The First Minister says that he is wrong, but he does not know because he has not asked. The First Minister says that we would keep the pound, but he does not know that either, because he has not asked.
The reality is that the First Minister will say anything to get through the moment and then ask us to take his assertions on trust. Does he not realise that after this week nobody trusts him?
I would have thought that, given that this debate has lasted for a considerable time, Johann Lamont would have taken the precaution of at least reading the ministerial code. She just made the contrast when she asked why I could not reveal the existence of legal advice while Nicola Sturgeon this week told the chamber that we were seeking specific advice on this question. I point her towards understanding and reading the ministerial code, paragraph 2.35 of which says:
“The fact that legal advice has or has not been given to the Scottish Government by the Law Officers and the content of any legal advice given by them or anyone else must not be revealed outwith the Scottish Government without the Law Officers’ prior consent.”
When Nicola Sturgeon obtained the law officers’ prior consent, she was able to tell the chamber that we were seeking the specific legal advice.
I would have thought that, given that Labour ministers upheld the same ministerial code and that Johann Lamont was a Labour minister, that at least would now be understood in this debate. I hope that, now that the point has been cleared up for Johann Lamont, she will accept it. [Interruption.]
Order.
It is clear that the issue is about prior consent—I did not have prior consent and Nicola Sturgeon had prior consent. Is that really complicated?
I direct Johann Lamont to the comments of the Spanish foreign minister on 24 February this year, when he said:
“If in the UK both parties agree that this is consistent with their constitutional order, written or unwritten, Spain would have nothing to say, just that this does not affect us. No-one would object to a consented independence of Scotland.”
That brings us to the key point, which is that, in the Edinburgh agreement, under clause 30, the process by which independence for Scotland could be secured was agreed. That is the point that the Spanish foreign minister was making this year. Under those circumstances, we have sought the advice of the law officers, and that advice will inform the white paper on independence. That seems to me to be substantial progress in the debate, giving Johann Lamont the information that she claims she needs.
I am asking for the information that the people of Scotland require to make the decision in future. The First Minister says that the difference between him and the Deputy First Minister is that she asked permission to tell us that she was going to get advice. Could he not have asked permission to tell us that he had not asked for any advice?
Members might find this hard to believe, but I actually feel for the First Minister. All his life, he has fought for this and now he knows that his argument does not meet the times. Now he knows that it does not make sense for Scotland, so he makes things up instead. No one wants the euro, so in his world he pretends that we would not have to have it, even though he knows that we would. Before now, Alex has always got his way. His need for a place in Scottish history comes before the needs of the people of Scotland.
As I said, I feel for the First Minister. His argument is falling apart in front of his eyes, and his own back benchers know it. His deceptions are being found out and no one believes him any more. How can this country have an honest debate about our future when we cannot trust a word that Alex Salmond says?
In the climax of Johann Lamont’s question, she actually almost directly quoted the Prime Minister. How appropriate that those in the better together campaign are even sharing phrases.
Let me tell Johann Lamont something for nothing. I think that it is worth while for Scotland to govern its own affairs and to escape from the welfare reform that is impoverishing our fellow citizens. I think that it is important for Scotland to take its place as an independent member of the European Union. Johann Lamont should look at the huge number of authorities who have said that over the years, which I have cited many times in this chamber.
It is of fundamental importance that we elect the Government that we want and that we do not have one foisted on us by Westminster. It is fundamentally important that this chamber and the Scottish people see Scotland as an independent member, equal with other nations in the European Union. Self-government for Scotland and proper representation by a Government that reflects the interests of the Scottish people—that is entirely the argument that will carry Scotland in two years’ time.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00907)
I have no plans in the near future but, of course, I met him last week to sign the Edinburgh agreement.
And, on that day, I believe that your advisers told you not to look too triumphant. It is amazing what 10 days can do, eh?
For days, we have had more ducking and diving than Del Boy from the First Minister as he avoided the conclusion that every fair-minded person has already reached, which is that he has misled the country into believing that his case for Scotland’s place in Europe was based on proper legal advice. Now, if we believe the Deputy First Minister, that was all a fantasy—“This time in 2014, Nicola, we’ll all be millionaires.”
However, perhaps this politician of the year is less Del Boy and more Bill Clinton—“I did not have legal relations with that man, Mr Mulholland.” [Interruption.]
Order.
The fact is that Mr Salmond and his deputy cannot both be right. Either the First Minister misled the BBC and the nation into believing that he had legal advice and then spent thousands in a devious attempt to cover his tracks or, much more seriously, the Deputy First Minister has misled Parliament by telling us that no such advice existed all along when, in fact, it did, which is a resignation offence.
Which one is it? Did he mislead the public or did she mislead Parliament?
I think that about 12 per cent of that question was the sort of question that we should hear in this chamber.
I do not know whether Ruth Davidson listened to the answer to the first question, but I tried to explain the distinction between seeking specific legal advice from the law officers, which is bound by the ministerial code, and—as I have referred to a number of times in the chamber—the legalling of major Government documents. In the latter case, the law officers tell us whether there is anything wrong with our statements; in the first case, they have to say what their opinion is. It is a clear distinction, and I hope that Ruth Davidson now understands it.
In terms of the question about Nicola Sturgeon and myself, according to the ministerial code prior consent must be sought. The Deputy First Minister had that prior consent and, therefore, what she told the chamber on Tuesday was perfectly acceptable.
I am struck by the fact that the Conservative Party seems to think that this position on the ministerial code is unique to this Government. In fact, it has been carried by every Westminster and Scottish Government since time immemorial. Across many countries, the same precepts exist in terms of the confidentiality of legal advice. I have here a letter from a Scottish citizen to the Attorney General’s office. On 21 November last year, he asked Dominic Grieve’s office whether it held legal advice on the subject of Scottish independence. The reply that he got was:
“I am unable to confirm or deny whether this department holds any information”.
I say to Ruth Davidson that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
It seems that the only sauce that the goose needs to get around the ministerial code is a panicked phone call on Tuesday morning because it seems like a good day to bury bad news.
The inescapable truth is that neither the First Minister nor his deputy can be trusted to tell the truth. Maybe it is not Bill Clinton; maybe it is Richard Nixon—“I am not a crook.” Maybe the First Minister is not a crook, but the people of Scotland simply cannot believe a word that he says—[Interruption.]
Order.
And, because of him, we cannot believe a word that his deputy says either.
The one way to clear this up is for the Lord Advocate to come to the chamber to explain what law officers were asked, what they said and when they said it. Will the First Minister now take the appropriate action to ensure that Frank Mulholland appears before Parliament at the earliest opportunity?
I am amused by these references to American politicians. We have had Bill Clinton and others, but I would have thought that the American politician that Ruth Davidson would be most familiar with is Mitt Romney. Is he not the one who dismissed 47 per cent of the American population? Of course, Ruth Davidson dismisses 88 per cent of the Scottish population.
I am reminded that there is nothing new under the sun. I have here a cutting from the Scotland on Sunday of 8 March 1992, when the Tory and Labour parties were queueing up to tell Scotland that it would not be admitted to the European Union. Here is what the cutting says:
“A former European Court judge has cast doubts on John Major’s assertion that if Scotland became independent it would have to apply to join the EC as a new state ...
Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, a judge on the European Court of Justice, told Scotland on Sunday that devolution would leave Scotland and ‘something called “the rest” in the same legal boat. If Scotland had to reapply, so would the rest.’”
The really interesting thing about it is that, as I recall, that legal advice was sought from Lord Mackenzie-Stuart by the Conservative Party. The argument has been going on for a long time.
On the question about law officers, the great thing about law officers in Scotland under the Scottish Government is that they are independent in terms of how they conduct their affairs. They do not, like the Attorney General or the Advocate General for Scotland, take part in the political argument. I think that, basically, people in Scotland prefer the law officers to be independent, and we will keep it that way.
Unemployment
3. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the latest labour market statistics suggesting that there has been a quarterly increase in unemployment in Scotland compared with a fall across the rest of the United Kingdom. (S4F-00915)
The Scottish Government is taking a range of measures, which I know that Ken Macintosh has agreed with, consistently calling on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to boost capital spending to accelerate recovery, create jobs and return the public finances to balance. That is what Ken Macintosh supported when he backed our calls, in the economy debate of 11 September, to implement shovel-ready projects.
I caution Ken Macintosh about the statistics for the United Kingdom. Unemployment across the UK fell by some 50,000, but we know that 100,000 temporary jobs were created for the Olympics in London—a point that has been made by some of his colleagues. I hope that Ken Macintosh maintains his support for the Scottish Government in trying to obtain the capital investment to get the economy moving. It would be a great deal easier if we could just implement those changes instead of having to ask a Tory chancellor.
Does the First Minister accept that 30,000 of the jobs that have been lost in little over a year were in the public sector in Scotland—that is, nurses, police support staff and civil servants? Those areas are the direct or indirect responsibility of the First Minister himself. If the First Minister is not able to explain why unemployment is higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, can he tell us how many jobs—how many care assistants and teaching assistants—will be lost because of his 4.3 per cent real-terms cut to local government in this year’s budget?
If Ken Macintosh has looked at the statistics as closely as he should, he will know that the fall in public sector employment in Scotland has been much less than the fall in public sector employment across the UK because we have approached things differently in central Government and local government in Scotland. For example, we have a policy of no compulsory redundancies in the Government and its agencies and in the national health service.
Perhaps Ken Macintosh can turn his mind again to agreeing with the Government that we need a different economic policy that will take the economy out of recession by stimulating capital investment. Even the gross domestic product figures that were released today show another decline in the construction sector throughout the UK. Surely, that is proof positive that the calls by this Government—supported by Ken Macintosh—are on the right lines for bringing the economy out of recession. Ken Macintosh must accept that the macroeconomics of Scotland are controlled by the UK chancellor in London at present. I repeat my question: would it not be better if we controlled these towering heights of the economy and could do something about the circumstances and help our people?
Forth Replacement Crossing
4. To ask the First Minister what recent progress has been made with the Forth replacement crossing. (S4F-00927)
The project is progressing well, it remains on time and on budget and people who pass the Forth can see the extraordinary progress that is being made on the new crossing. By the end of the year, the new overhead gantries that form part of the Fife system on the M90 between Halbeath and Admiralty junctions will be commissioned. Improvements to junction 1A of the M9, including the new west-facing slip roads, are now scheduled to finish early next year.
Does the First Minister agree that Elaine Murray MSP’s comments, which questioned the necessity of Scotland’s largest infrastructure project, show the shambolic nature of the Labour Party’s transport policy? Will he confirm that the Government will remain fully committed to delivering this vital artery in Scotland’s transport network on time and on budget?
It was an extraordinary interview. I think that we need to know: do Labour Party members still support the replacement crossing that they voted for in this chamber? What are they saying to the 1,100 people who are now directly employed in that project or the more than 306 Scottish companies that are already benefiting from contracts and subcontracts? When the project is making such great progress and so much work is being done that 1,100 people are working on it, if the Labour Party decides at this moment to withdraw its support, does it want us to finish the gantries but leave the rest of the bridge? I suspect that Labour members want to get their act together, change their mind again and tell people in Fife and Scotland that they actually support the new crossing across the Forth.
Perhaps the First Minister and Mr Keir might have read the transcript of the article or even just the article itself. Surely, First Minister, no fair-minded person would consider that there was any suggestion that the project should be scrapped—or even that it could be, now that his lot has signed the contracts for the Chinese steel and the European contract.
Is the First Minister not aware that many commentators, including Professor John Kay at the Finance Committee yesterday, are questioning the cost—
Members: Where is the question?
Can we get to the point, please?
This is the question: is the First Minister aware that people are questioning the cost of the project and its value to the Scottish economy, particularly considering his party’s procurement policies?
I am grateful to Elaine Murray for confirming that, just occasionally, our position might be misrepresented by journalists.
One thing that I find difficult to answer, given that the Forth replacement crossing is on time and under budget, is that if Labour members supported the project at the budget level that was expected, how on earth can they be withdrawing their support now when it is under budget and costing less than we expected? Perhaps Elaine Murray could arrange for a further interview with Holyrood magazine where she can clarify the position and then come to the chamber. She is fortunate that she will not have to account for the situation, but she might just have to explain it to her leader on the front bench.
Poverty
5. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to address poverty. (S4F-00913)
The biggest threat to poverty in Scotland is the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reforms. That is why, in terms of action, the Deputy First Minister announced this week the creation of a new Scottish welfare fund, through which an additional £9 million will be allocated to funding to be transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions. That will offer an extra 100,000 vulnerable Scots financial help.
However, I accept, as I think that Drew Smith accepts, that mitigating the whole range of benefit cuts that are coming down the road from the UK Government will simply not be possible within the finances of this Parliament. Surely the solution is for this Parliament to have control over such matters, so that we can devise the policies for the benefit of the Scottish people.
I welcome the Scottish welfare fund, although the First Minister will be aware that, as a cash-limited fund, it is likely that it will continue to run out before the end of the year. I think that Government officials have already confirmed that.
The First Minister will be aware that the “A Wider Lens” report, which was released by Demos and Quarriers this week, indicates that thousands of families are already facing severe disadvantage in Scotland today, including more than 10 per cent of families in Glasgow.
Given that progress on reducing child poverty has halted in Scotland in recent years, what does the First Minister consider are the key drivers of change needed by those families and the communities that they live in? What targeted support is the Scottish Government offering to those families and children that might impact on that situation?
I point Drew Smith to the fact that the changes that we are making to the Scottish welfare fund will help an additional 100,000 vulnerable Scots. That seems to me to be a lot of folk.
In my first answer to Drew Smith, I accepted that we cannot, across the range of benefit cuts that are coming from Westminster, make good the difference. We just cannot do that with the finances of a devolved Parliament.
However, we have made up that difference in two hugely significant areas. The first of those is the council tax benefit, which we were given control of, but with a 10 per cent cut. By working and reaching agreement with local authorities, the Scottish Government is making good that difference for hard-pressed families. The second is the Scottish welfare fund. Money has been transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions, but we have had another 10 per cent cut. However, we have made up the difference with an additional £9 million over the period.
Those seem to me to be examples of great action by this Government to do our best under the most difficult circumstance. I make no claim that we can compensate for every reduction in the budget by the UK Government, but I hope that when Drew Smith thinks about that—I know that he does, because he cares about the issue—surely the solution for the people of Scotland is to have control over those budgets so that we can act in the best interests of the people of Scotland all the time, and not just mitigate the impact of Westminster cuts.
Wind Farms (Landscape)
6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that wind farms do not have a negative impact on the landscape. (S4F-00909)
Wind energy, which is part of the wide range of renewable technologies that we want to develop, will play a vital role in helping us to meet our climate change targets and that will deliver a secure and sustainable energy mix for Scotland that delivers jobs and investment to communities across the country.
It is vital that those developments are delivered sustainably and that they take place in the most appropriate locations. We have a planning and consent system that is open, transparent and inclusive, which ensures that developments only go ahead subject to their impacts on landscape and on a number of other issues being acceptable. That view, of course, is shared across the Government and by its stakeholders.
Given the admission by VisitScotland that the building of a wind farm in Dumfriesshire could have a negative impact on the landscape and the substantial growth in the number of local communities opposing wind farm applications, which includes at least one Scottish council that is seeking a moratorium on future developments, on what evidence—legal or otherwise—has the First Minister based that opinion?
First, I am sure that Liz Smith would not want to misquote VisitScotland. She will have seen that the chief executive has said that the press comments were inaccurate in a letter to the newspapers concerned.
Secondly, Liz Smith should know that the figures demonstrate that not every wind farm application is approved. They are approved if they conform to the planning conditions and the right circumstances. I can put in the Scottish Parliament information centre a copy of the consents that have been granted and those that have been refused by the Scottish Government, which validates that position.
I am concerned when I hear the Conservative Party allude to a moratorium on wind energy development. There are now, I think, 18,000 people employed directly in renewable energy across Scotland. [The First Minister has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] What will the Conservative Party say to the folk in Machrihanish who are employed to build wind towers? Will it say that those people should be out of a job, that it does not want them anymore and that they are being unproductive, given the success of many of the wind farm developments in Scotland, including the 125,000 visitors to the Whitelee visitor centre since it opened a couple of years ago?
My other difficulty is whether that is the consistent view of the Conservative Party. My attention has been drawn to the comments of Adam Bruce, the former Conservative candidate for north-east Fife. This year he said:
“Wind energy reduces price risk and cuts bills even when subsidised. It delivers economic growth, national income and jobs. The UK has the largest potential share of wind energy of any country in the EU. We need more wind energy in the UK’s electricity mix, not less.”
The Conservative Party should do two things. First, it should clarify what its policy is and, secondly, it should attempt to speak with one voice and not con the people.