Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, October 27, 2011

Official Report 1011KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00203)

I will meet the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth. The subject matter will be the small business bonus scheme. I am sure that all members will welcome the latest official statistics, which have been published today and which show that, since 2009, there has been a 15 per cent increase in uptake and that more than 85,000 premises in Scotland now benefit from that substantial scheme.

Talking of signing up, I have here a picture of the First Minister signing up to an election pledge for the National Union of Students Scotland to protect college places. Will he keep that promise?

The Scottish Government intends to keep all the promises in its manifesto. The manifesto says:

“We have reached agreement with our universities and colleges to maintain student numbers in the year ahead and will maintain this throughout the next Parliament.”

That is what our manifesto states and what we will go forward with.

I welcome the First Minister’s promise to stick to the pledge, although he will forgive me if I am a little sceptical. Is it the same kind of promise as the promise that he would keep to his manifesto pledges to reduce class sizes to 18 and to maintain teacher numbers? Those were other education pledges to which he signed up. Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning told the Education and Culture Committee that “something has to give”. I have a letter from the principal of Angus College that states that Alex Salmond has cut the principal’s teaching budget by 40 per cent and that 2,000 places will be cut. That is in one college. Will the First Minister be honest and agree that college places are going to be cut?

I thought that Iain Gray would have realised that the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council has not issued the plans for each college, so I am afraid that his suggestions are threadbare. The Labour Party can come back and debate the issue when the plans are issued.

I want to point out a remarkable feature of the spending plans. We are in the most extraordinarily difficult financial times, which I think Iain Gray would acknowledge, given that a large part of the difficulty is the Labour Government’s responsibility. There is not much point in debating what was said in the previous session of Parliament because, to remind Mr Gray, the people judged on that in May and it was a pretty overwhelming conclusion. The substantial and interesting point is that, over the spending review period, which is from 2012-13 to 2014-15, the total investment in post-16 education, which includes universities and colleges, training and skills, is £5.95 billion, with the figure rising from £1.92 billion in 2011-12 to £1.99 billion in 2014-15, which is an increase of 3.2 per cent.

Against the context of cuts that Alistair Darling promised would be tougher and deeper than those of Margaret Thatcher and which were then increased by the Tory-Liberal coalition, that is a remarkable investment in the future of universities, colleges and young people in Scotland.

Frankly, those who run Angus College will feel that the First Minister is living in a parallel universe. The letter that I referred to outlines cuts of 40 per cent and says that 2,000 student opportunities will go. Yesterday, the education secretary said that the figures were hypothetical, but there are real cuts in college places already. I spent Saturday at the hardest hit rally in Edinburgh. Disabled people fear for the future, and their figures show that almost 1,000 college places for disabled learners have already gone, which is getting on for half of such places across Scotland. Do those Scots have no place in Alex Salmond’s brave new world? Why is he not protecting their college places and their future?

I remind Iain Gray of the manifesto commitment to maintain student numbers, which is exactly what we will do. I also remind him that, given that we do not yet have the figures for individual colleges, I have set out the overall picture for post-16 education. On his specific question, the phrase “opportunities for all” that we are using means exactly what it says: every single 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland who is not in a job, apprenticeship or full-time education will be offered an education or training opportunity. Instead of attacking it, Iain Gray should welcome that remarkable commitment in the face of cutbacks that are the joint responsibility of successive Westminster Labour and Tory and Liberal Governments.

That promise was from the Labour manifesto not the Scottish National Party manifesto. I welcome it, but the Scottish Consortium for Learning Disability tells him that opportunities are being removed right now for Scots who have learning disabilities. Are they not included in the promise?

Alex Salmond spent last weekend rallying his faithful troops in Inverness and rewarding them with wrist bands—[Interruption.] I knew it; they are like sheep. I knew that some of them would hold them up. Perhaps the First Minister missed the news that applications for our universities have plummeted and that our education system consistently fails our poorest children and young people who have disabilities. He must know that one in four of our young men cannot find work. He has let youth unemployment double in this country. When is he going to stop banging on about a mythical independence generation and start doing something for Scotland’s lost generation?

There are substantially more SNP troops and SNP votes than there are Labour Party troops or votes in Scotland at present.

We have made a number of strong commitments. Youth employment in Scotland is almost 5 per cent higher than it is across the United Kingdom, but youth unemployment is far too high. It is a serious issue, which is why we have introduced 25,000 modern apprenticeships, which is 60 per cent more than Iain Gray’s party offered when it was last in government. That is why we have kept faith with the post-16 education sector and, when remarkable cuts are being made to the Scottish budget, it is extraordinary that that commitment to post-16 education and the commitment to student numbers applies. That is also why we have introduced opportunities for all.

In his questions, Iain Gray referred to what happened during the previous parliamentary session. He then talked about the Labour and SNP manifestos. I know that Iain Gray is finding it difficult to come to terms with what happened in May. People compared the SNP record in government with the record of the Labour Party in Westminster and Scotland. They compared the SNP’s manifesto with Iain Gray’s manifesto and they came to an overwhelming conclusion. I suggest that Iain Gray learns to live with it.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00190)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

I realise that this is my final opportunity to hold an exchange with the First Minister at question time.

Members: Aw.

I reassure him that I will not sing:

“Good-bye-ee, good-bye-ee, wipe the tears, baby dear, from your eye-ee”.

I have a feeling that that would not encapsulate his sentiments about my going. I have enjoyed our exchanges.

I was proud to deliver a new drugs strategy that is focused on recovery, but it means nothing if it is not being rolled out on the ground. I was proud to be at the forefront of giving Scotland 1,000 extra police officers, but that achievement is diminished if understaffed courts cannot prosecute criminal cases. I was proud that Scottish Conservative votes delivered help with business rates for thousands of small businesses across Scotland, but now businesses are to be hit with higher rates. How has the First Minister undermined three such good policies in such a short space of time?

Annabel Goldie understates the importance and long-lasting nature of those policies. We have made substantial progress and I welcome her support for drugs rehabilitation in Scotland. The 1,000 extra police officers are in operation on our streets and in our communities around Scotland. It was said by others in the chamber that the commitment would never be delivered, but they were proved wrong and we were proved right. I believe that those extra police are a substantial reason for the fact that recorded crime in Scotland is now at a 35-year low. Annabel Goldie should note that we now know that the small business bonus scheme is delivering for 85,000 properties in Scotland. That seems to me to be another substantial achievement. I am very happy to credit Annabel Goldie with having supported those valuable initiatives. I hope that she will realise that now, whatever may happen, I will have to pursue those matters alone. However, I assure her that I will protect her legacy.

One of the more enjoyable features of this job has been reining in the First Minister’s more obvious exuberances. I must tell him that his priorities of independence and jaunting off to the middle east are not the priorities of people, patients, students and victims. It falls to me to rein him in again.

Will the First Minister instruct the Lord Advocate to hold a crisis meeting with prosecutors to ensure that criminal cases are not time barred? Will he instruct his health minister to report to the Parliament as soon as possible on the burgeoning and inescapable problem of caring for the elderly in hospital? Will he explain how a 25 per cent increase over five years in the cost of methadone is compatible with a drugs strategy that focuses on recovery?

I will take careful note of and will take forward all those important issues, as instructed by Annabel Goldie.

Everything that I said before the recess, when I thought that it was Annabel Goldie’s last question to me, still stands. I offer this compliment, which was paid on television the other night by one of the contenders in the Tory leadership election:

“The reality is that whoever wins this leadership election will at least in the short term be less well known and less popular with the public than Annabel Goldie. And if Annabel Goldie presided over a fall in our vote I don’t think any of the four of us are going to be able to turn it around in any short space of time.”

That is a quote from Murdo Fraser. I think that he was trying to say what I and, I am sure, the whole chamber believe, which is that, whatever the electoral results say, Annabel Goldie was an excellent leader of the Scottish Conservative party. I believe that she maximised the Conservatives’ possible vote because she was well thought of and well liked and, above all, because she was respected by the Scottish population for the manner in which she put forward her ideas. I, too, have enjoyed our exchanges at question time. Thank you, Annabel. [Applause.]

Ms Goldie, because I am all heart, you can ask the First Minister a final supplementary question. [Laughter.]

I am indebted to the Presiding Officer for her generosity, and I thank the Prime Minister—I mean, the First Minister—[Laughter.] It is good to give him a taste of what will never be. [Laughter.]

I remember the First Minister dolefully observing of a previous Prime Minister that he never writes and he never calls. Let me reassure the First Minister that, although I may be leaving this job and may not be invited round to the new Salmond towers for drinks, he has not heard the last of me. I shall write and I shall call.

I shall answer the phone and reply to the letters, and invitations will be in the post.

Adam Ingram has a constituency question.

The First Minister will be aware of the brutal murder of Stuart Walker in my constituency last weekend and of the universal shock and horror that it has aroused in the Cumnock community. Will he give the Parliament an update on the investigation?

The constituency member describes the murder as brutal, as indeed it was. It was a shocking incident. The police are responsible for the conduct of the inquiry, but they have said publicly that they anticipate that their inquiries will have a positive conclusion. It remains for the Parliament to offer condolences to the friends and the family of Mr Walker.

The First Minister will be aware of recent press reports concerning radiation levels at the beach in Dalgety Bay that are 100 times greater than at Sandside beach at Dounreay. Those reports are of real concern to residents in the area. Does he agree that it is imperative that all agencies, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Ministry of Defence, work together extremely urgently and effectively to tackle the issue once and for all? There is no room for any further delay in assessing the scale of problem and solving it.

As the constituency member knows, SEPA is actively involved in that question at present and is pursuing it with great alacrity. I hope that it will get full co-operation from the responsible Westminster department. It is in all our interests that the MOD approaches the matter with an open book. Helen Eadie can be certain that SEPA will pursue its responsibilities with great diligence.

---

Longannet (Carbon Capture and Storage)

3. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the decision by the United Kingdom Government not to proceed with the proposed carbon capture and storage project at Longannet. (S4F-00208)

The carbon capture and storage project at Longannet was a huge opportunity, not only for Scotland but for the rest of these islands and for Europe. Unfortunately, it is now a lost opportunity. I recognise the strong case that Bill Walker has made on behalf of his constituents in this Parliament and elsewhere, and I know that all members in the chamber will unite in condemning a Treasury decision that ends the prospects of that world-leading project and threatens the future of clean coal in Scotland.

This is about more than a single project. It tells us loud and clear that this Parliament should be responsible for Scotland’s energy future and energy resources.

It is truly a missed opportunity for Fife and for the whole of Scotland. The Treasury and the Westminster Department for Energy and Climate Change dithered and disagreed over the necessary funding, despite the fact that the cost of the whole project could have been covered by one tenth of the yearly estimated North Sea oil and gas revenues—

I ask the member to get to his question, please.

Indeed. Will the First Minister continue to make the case to the Westminster Government that it is simply not acceptable to mouth words of support and offer warm words about carbon capture when what is needed is real action, so that Scotland can capitalise on that massive economic opportunity?

I will quote the words of Professor Stuart Haszeldine, who is probably the world expert on carbon capture. On “Newsnight Scotland” on 19 October, he said:

“it has gone through three Prime Ministers, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and now David Cameron, all of whom claim to be enthusiastic about carbon capture and storage. None of whom have been able to deliver it. It’s a project that has been extremely complicated and subject to a lot of quite unfair Treasury rules, and the Government has consistently refused to take on board much of the risk.”

As Bill Walker pointed out, at a time when North Sea oil and gas revenues are more than £13 billion for this year alone, it would not have been unreasonable to expect expenditure of one tenth of that amount to secure the long-term future of clean coal in Scotland.

It is unhelpful to suggest that the work done by the partners on the project has been lost. Does the First Minister agree that there is every confidence that the project in Peterhead is the one that others will have to beat? Is it his view that, when a project bid comes in at 50 per cent over budget, ministers should proceed regardless?

The member should have a look at Professor Haszeldine’s full interview on “Newsnight Scotland”, in which he exposed the reality behind the Treasury calculations and the application of risk and project factors in a quite unreasonable fashion.

I sat behind the Liberal members in the House of Commons when they condemned in the strongest fashion the previous Labour Government’s decision to turn its back on the Peterhead project in 2007. Is it too much to expect that Liberal members will see the Longannet betrayal as a lost opportunity for coal? Liam McArthur can be sure that we will be pressing to the utmost to try to secure and salvage a carbon capture project for Scotland. However, he must surely recognise the huge disappointment, the huge lost opportunity and the unfairness of carbon capture in Scotland not being funded while Scotland’s resources fund his Government at Westminster.

I know that the First Minister has a close relationship with Scottish Power’s parent company, Iberdrola. Since the announcement was made, has the First Minister or anyone in his Government taken the opportunity to speak to the trade unions who represent workers in Scottish Power to ask whether they have any long-term concerns about Longannet and energy policy more widely?

The Scottish Trades Union Congress is on the Scottish energy advisory board—my energy advisory board, which I co-chair—which has discussed this project many times. I will be glad to meet the trade unions at Longannet to talk about the future of coal in Scotland, but the future of clean coal in Scotland was centred on this carbon capture project.

The comments made by Labour members at Westminster did not strike me as being as thoroughgoing as I would have expected, given the significance of this announcement. I think that I am right in saying that it was not mentioned by the Labour front bench when Chris Huhne made his statement. It is an extraordinarily important decision that casts a pall over the future of clean coal in Scotland.

I will be delighted to meet the trade unions, but I suspect that the trade unions at Longannet will recognise the importance of and the element of betrayal in this United Kingdom Government decision.

---

Computer Games Industry

4. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to support Scotland’s computer games industry. (S4F-00202)

We are taking a range of steps to support the computer games companies. In 2009, the Scottish Government invested £3 million in making the University of Abertay Dundee the United Kingdom’s first ever centre of excellence in computer games. Scottish Enterprise manages 15 computer games companies and has made major investments in Glasgow’s digital media quarter and in Seabraes Yards in Dundee. That commitment has borne strong results. For example, in February I was delighted to announce that Outplay Entertainment planned to establish its headquarter office in Dundee, creating 150 jobs and relocating from California.

I thank the First Minister for his response. Earlier this week, the video games industry body, TIGA, and trade group the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment—UKIE—recognised the positive difference that independence could make to the industry and criticised the UK Government for failing to invest in the Scottish games sector. Will the First Minister join me in urging the UK Government to offer specifically targeted tax relief to help this vital industry thrive in Dundee and across Scotland? Will he also continue the support that the Scottish Government is giving to the industry by considering the case for a creative content fund and have the relevant minister meet me and games industry representatives to explore that proposal?

Those are very important proposals. I recognise what TIGA has been saying about the computer games industry. Its case for tax relief is based on the argument that revenues would increase if the tax relief were granted—it cites international examples—because of the attraction of key investments into Dundee and Scotland. That is an example of why we need control over a tax base if we are going to offer such incentives in a successful way. On the last point, Joe FitzPatrick is aware that the Scottish Government has been asked to examine the establishment of a creative content fund to encourage new and further investment. I have asked officials to meet TIGA in early course to discuss how the proposal might be developed.

Given that the UK Government has not only failed to introduce games tax relief, despite assurances by the previous Government that it would—the present incumbents show no desire to do so—and given that Ireland appears to be considering tax breaks in this area, does the First Minister agree that it is vital that the UK Government acts now to ensure that the games industry continues to invest in Scotland and does not start looking elsewhere? If the UK Government will not do so, is it not time that it gave us the powers to do it ourselves?

Yes, it is vital; yes, we should have the powers. The illustration of that is clear: the proposals put forward by TIGA, based on international examples, indicated how to be competitive. This sector could operate in an environment where tax relief and tax breaks result in an increase in revenue because of increased investment. It is obvious to members in this chamber that successive Labour Governments and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government have refused to do that. Would it not be better if we controlled the tax base and tax incentives so that we could respond in the way that this vital industry wants for Dundee and for Scotland as a whole?

Has the First Minister considered a targeted tax relief with a power that he actually has, namely business rates?

I point out that we have considered a very well-targeted business rates policy that has resulted in 85,000 businesses across Scotland enjoying the small business bonus. Given some of the things that I have been hearing in the Tory leadership contest, I am not certain that a future Conservative leader will be as dedicated in their support for that Scottish National Party initiative as Annabel Goldie has been.

---

Waiting Times Targets (Surgery Appointments)

5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will investigate claims that patients are being offered unrealistic surgery appointments in England in order to circumvent waiting times targets. (S4F-00205)

As Richard Simpson will know, the Government is committed to lower waiting times and to complete transparency in the reporting of waiting times. Indeed, it was this Government that abolished hidden waiting lists. Initial findings from the investigation that is being carried through by NHS Lothian are that it did not make its patients a reasonable offer and offered only one appointment date to patients. That does not comply with the new ways waiting times guidance. The chief executive of NHS Lothian has initiated a full investigation, which will report to him by early November. A copy of the report will be submitted to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy, Nicola Sturgeon. Members will be interested to know that all the patients concerned are now being treated locally and are no longer having to be offered treatment in England.

I thank the First Minister for that most helpful reply in resolving the situation. The new ways waiting times initiative, which was actually an initiative from Labour that was then implemented fully by the Scottish National Party and is therefore a scheme to which both parties have joined up, has resulted in more than 100,000 patients being removed from the waiting lists every year. Many of those have been removed for valid reasons, but—

Can we get to a question, please?

My question to the First Minister is this: given the large numbers that are being removed from the waiting lists and the evidence that the NHS Lothian case shows of new gaming, which led to the problem of hidden waiting lists, will he ask the cabinet secretary to undertake a review of the new ways waiting times initiative to ensure that no gaming is taking place in other areas of Scotland?

First, there is now transparency, so the cabinet secretary does that as a matter of course. Secondly, I remind Richard Simpson that, as I know he was going to tell members, when we took office in March 2007, 29,000 patients had an availability status code—in other words, they were part of hidden waiting lists. Lastly, I know that Richard Simpson will have seen the figures from the United Kingdom comparative waiting times group that were recently published, which demonstrate that Scotland had the lowest median waiting times in the UK for seven of the 11 procedures under examination. That is before the UK Government tries to dismantle the health service south of the border.

---

Independence Referendum

6. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will set a date for the referendum on independence. (S4F-00198)

In good time to meet our election commitment.

The First Minister will not give us a date for his referendum and now he wants to muddle things further with talk of a third option. Surely it cannot be the case that the First Minister lacks the courage to put his big idea of independence to a straight yes or no vote of the Scottish people, or is he feart?

I now find out that Murdo Fraser has been feeding lines to the Prime Minister. I congratulate Murdo Fraser, who has, alone among the Tory candidates, questioned me for the fourth time. That is marvellous practice. It would be such a shame if all that practice came to naught.

I have been handed a statement by Matt Qvortrup, a professor and the world’s foremost expert on constitutional referenda, from a letter that he is sending to The Times newspaper. He closes the letter by saying:

“While it is a matter for the Scottish people and Parliament to determine the form of their own referendum and while asking about a single question would be much more common, such a two-question proposition would be fair, reasonable and clear.”

Our position is that, whatever else Murdo Fraser can count on—and I suspect that this is more certain than the result of the Conservative leadership campaign—there shall be a yes-or-no question on Scottish independence on the ballot paper, and the independence referendum will be held in the second half of this parliamentary session. That is the proposition that we put to the people of Scotland, on which we received an overwhelming and resounding majority.

I am not interested in the opinions of constitutional lawyers, however eminent they are; I am interested in the opinions of the First Minister. If the First Minister is so confident that he can win support for independence, why not put the matter to a vote now and let the people decide?

There are a couple of reasons. The people of Scotland showed faith in the Scottish National Party in the election campaign, and I thought that the SNP would show faith in the people of Scotland. That is an original concept for the Conservative Party.

I am fascinated. We heard from Annabel Goldie that she did not really care about some of the world’s most renowned economists; now, of course, we are not to care about the views of the leading constitutional professors and experts. The problem for the Conservative Party and the reason why it has been reduced to its present pitiful condition is not that it has not paid attention to the views of economists or constitutional experts, although doing so would have been good; the reason for the state of the Conservative Party is that it has never paid attention to the views of the people of Scotland.

I am interested in what the learned professor thinks, but I am even more interested in what we think we could do with the answer to our question on a subject over which we have no jurisdiction. It is not in our gift to say what happens to anything other than an independence vote from the Scottish people. We cannot say how much devolution or what sort of devolution there should be. Why are we piddling about with the second question?

I fully accept that one of the great advantages of independence over devolution is that it requires the inalienable right and sovereignty of the Scottish people, but I look forward enormously to campaigning shoulder to shoulder with Margo MacDonald in the independence referendum campaign.

12:32 Meeting suspended.





14:15 On resuming—