Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, June 28, 2012

Official Report 1110KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. I welcome the First Minister back to his place.

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00801)

I thank Johann Lamont for that welcome.

Later today I will meet Fergus Ewing and Derek Mackay to discuss arrangements for Mandela day, which is the annual celebration of the work and legacy of Nelson Mandela that is held on his birthday on July 18. Events in Scotland are co-ordinated by Action for Southern Africa Scotland, which is the successor to the anti-apartheid movement.

I am sure that all members in the chamber will be delighted to know that we have just received a message from Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He says:

“I am aware that Scotland has set world leading targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is working closely with Mary Robinson to champion climate justice. These initiatives are very much in the spirit of Mandela Day and I am delighted that the strong links between the people of South Africa, and the people of Scotland endure. The more people who mark and enjoy Mandela day, the better!” [Applause.]

Of course, I wish the First Minister well with those plans for a man who is an inspiration to all of us who believe in equality and justice across the world.

In the past few years, the First Minister has befriended Fred Goodwin, Rupert Murdoch and David Murray. Since then, a bank has gone down, a paper has folded and a football club has closed. In that context, was the First Minister’s decision not to meet the Dalai Lama an act of mercy? [Interruption.]

Order.

The visit of the Dalai Lama was presented as a pastoral religious visit, which is how it was greeted. As I understand it, the Presiding Officer convened a meeting in Parliament to receive him with due respect. That is the right way to greet a religious leader, which is a perfectly proper way for the Dalai Lama to be regarded.

For the life of me, I cannot see why that should be a matter of political division. It is a matter of duly acknowledging respect for a religious leader.

Last week, the Deputy First Minister quoted Robin Cook. This week, I will paraphrase John Smith. Here is the First Minister with the non-Midas touch. He holds his party conference in Glasgow, and in the local elections the city

“sent him homeward

Tae think again.”

He went to the cinema to launch his independence campaign and only yesterday announced that there will be a remake—[Interruption.] Did his pandas mate? No. They got the colic. How does the First Minister—[Interruption.]

Order.

How does the First Minister explain his sudden loss of form?

I am willing to accept responsibility for many things—but for non-mating pandas? I am glad that Johann Lamont is so pleased about yesterday. Yesterday, of course, we had an opinion poll that shows the SNP Government at 45 per cent and the Labour Party at 32 per cent. [Interruption.]

Order. Members should settle down.

I was pleased enough with the figures, but I am delighted with the Labour Party’s reaction. A Labour spokesman reacted to a poll that shows a 13 per cent SNP lead by saying, “We are pleased”. Labour is pleased and I am pleased with a 13 per cent SNP lead. We are ending the year in total harmony. We are all pleased.

That is just taking it too far. [Interruption.]

Order.

I would hazard a guess that, if the pandas had mated, the First Minister might have struggled to take credit for it. I know that the First Minister is pleased with himself—it is a defining characteristic of his nature.

However, I sometimes think that the firebrand First Minister’s gas is at a peep. Let us look at his radical plans. We are keeping the Queen and the pound, and keeping London in charge of interest rates and banking regulation. We are keeping the Union Jack and—oh—in an independent Scotland, we will all be British. That is what his party members all joined the SNP for: to remain British.

Is not the real reason why the First Minister is asking for a second question in his referendum the fact that he knows that he has lost the first?

I now realise that the Labour Party has a fascination with pandas. On 11 May, Patricia Ferguson reported that the Labour Party had submitted responses to the consultation on the referendum in the names of Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck and Tian Tian the panda. Unfortunately, there was no official response from the Labour Party itself, unless we want to select from the Labour ranks members for the three names that Patricia Ferguson noted. Given that the Labour Party did not submit a response to the consultation, is it really in a position to say that it has a stance on how the referendum should take place?

In contrast to the Labour Party, a huge number of people from civic Scotland were among the 21,000 people who responded to the consultation exercise. Last week, Pat Rafferty, the Unite regional secretary, said:

“The survey already reflects what the Scottish people are ... saying—that a majority want a second question.”

Henry McLeish said:

“There are compelling reasons for a second question and a bigger choice for Scots.”

Martin Sime of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations said that there is a “strong appetite” for a second question, and Grahame Smith, the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, said that it would be “daft” to rule out a multi-option referendum. [Interruption.]

There is too much shouting across the chamber.

In January, the Scottish Government set out our preferred question, which Ruth Davidson was fine enough about to say is “legal and decisive”. It is one that she approved of, at that stage.

People in civic Scotland are entitled to submit their ideas to the consultation. It ill behoves a party that could not even be bothered to submit a response to criticise those who have submitted one.

First, we recognise that the First Minister has a mandate to ask whether Scotland wants to leave the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland have the right to answer that question.

Secondly, the First Minister mentioned people who want a second question to be asked, but his own Deputy First Minister has said that she wants one question to be asked, and I suspect that the members behind her want that, too.

When the First Minister was a nationalist, my complaint was that rather than focusing on health and education, he just obsessed about independence. He still does not focus on what really matters to people, and it now appears that he does not even believe in independence any more. Yesterday, he abandoned the economic case for independence, outsourced his campaign and declared that the real nationalist Margo MacDonald is incompatible with it. Is not it the case that this is not about Scotland’s future, but that the country has been put on pause while the First Minister gropes for his place in history?

I am a Scottish nationalist and I believe in an independent Scotland, as does Margo MacDonald. When did Johann Lamont and the Labour Party last declare themselves to be socialists?

Let us talk about the issues that matter to Scots, which Johann Lamont says the Government does not focus on. In the past few days, we have seen some vital statistics. On the economy, Ernst & Young reported that, yet again, Scotland is the top destination for inward investment. We have the lowest level of recorded crime since 1975. Satisfaction with the health service in Scotland in the social attitudes survey is at a record level since the start of the Parliament. In education, 92 per cent of secondary schools provide two periods of physical education—that figure is up from 46 per cent. Maybe that is why the social attitudes survey told us that 71 per cent of people trust this Scottish Government, whereas 18 per cent trust the Westminster Government.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

2. I thank the First Minister for his letter in which he apologised to me for saying in the chamber last week that the Scottish Conservatives did not respond to his consultation. I am glad that he was able to put the record straight.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00795)

I willingly acknowledge that I did correct the record. I am sure that the Parliament will pardon me. It is becoming increasingly difficult to remember what the Conservative Party is and what the Labour Party is.

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

A month ago, the First Minister spared no expense in shipping in Atlantic ex-pats to add a touch of celebrity and glamour to the launch of his separation campaign. It was a launch the like of which we had never seen. In fact, it was remarkable in one completely undisputed way—it was the first campaign launch in political history to produce a bounce for its opponents.

However, since last month, the Greens have taken their ball away; we heard that a rapid relaunch was ordered from nat high command, and that is what we have seen. We now know that Dennis Canavan is going to be the new chair of the yes Scotland campaign. The First Minister has read out everybody else’s name. Can he tell us what Mr Canavan’s views are on the referendum question?

Mr Canavan is looking at the consultation that supports the right of the Scottish people to decide their own future in a referendum. I just wish that the Tories had been consistent on that position.

In terms of bounces, there was no bounce for the Tory party. It thought that, by association with Labour—a party for which support is at its lowest since 1918—it might get an opinion poll bounce, but there it is at 12 per cent in yesterday’s poll. There is not much sign of a bounce there.

I am puzzled as to why the Conservatives believe that having a campaign that is headed up by a Chancellor of the Exchequer who brought this

“great country ... to its knees”—

I am quoting from Annabel Goldie in 2010—is a particularly effective thing to do. [Interruption.]

Order.

I think that most folk, looking at the no campaign launch, would probably agree with the words of Charlie Gordon. Remember him? Charlie Gordon, former leader of Glasgow City Council and former Labour MSP, said:

“Only halfway through the recession, jobless youngsters’ benefits threatened, devolution can’t protect them.”

Better together with the Tories? I think that most Labour supporters in Scotland will agree with Charlie Gordon that the alliance between Labour and the Tories will be the death knell for both parties in Scotland.

I know that I am relatively new at this, but I am kind of getting used to all the assertion and bluster. I am pretty sure that the First Minister has no idea what Dennis Canavan’s views are on the referendum question, so let me share those views with Parliament. Just in April this year, the new chair of the separatist campaign said that he supports a single question, because otherwise

“It’s completely confusing to the electorate with all this devo-plus and devo-max.”

The chair of the yes Scotland campaign is in favour of a single question, the better together campaign is in favour of a single question, and every major party in this Parliament is in favour of a single question. Will the First Minister confirm today, ahead of whenever his next relaunch will be, that his Government and his party will back Dennis Canavan and support a single referendum question?

As Ruth Davidson might remember, the Government set out its preferred question in January. It is:

“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”

Of course, that was voted on recently by Parliament: a majority in Parliament agreed that Scotland should be an independent country.

Ruth Davidson responded to that in January by saying that it is a reasonable, direct and proper question to ask. I suppose that we should ask whether she is still of that opinion or has been instructed otherwise by her new partners in the no campaign.

We held a consultation exercise to which 21,000 submissions were made—roughly 10 times the number of submissions to the United Kingdom Government’s consultation. We now know that one person who made a submission was Ruth Davidson, on the Conservative Party’s behalf. I am sure that she would not want us not to consider carefully what the Conservative Party had to say about the great question that faces the Scottish people.

Equally, does Ruth Davidson think that we should not look at what civic Scotland, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the range of other opinions say? Maybe the Scottish National Party is at 45 per cent while the Tories are at 12 per cent in the polls because the trust that is invested in the Government is based on the fact that we listen to the people of Scotland and then take decisions, as opposed to listening to David Cameron and then doing what we are told.

In Glasgow earlier this month, the so-called Scottish defence league sought to disrupt a peaceful demonstration by the Glasgow campaign to welcome refugees. Following serious complaints, the chief constable of Strathclyde Police has agreed to an external investigation of allegations that officers were perceived to be facilitating the SDL’s activity.

Does the First Minister acknowledge the threat that is posed to our society by the organised racist thugs of the SDL and similar organisations? Does he agree that it would be unacceptable in the future for any police officer to be put in the position of being accused of facilitating the SDL in its obnoxious and disgusting activism?

Patrick Harvie and I are at one—as are members across the chamber—on his description of the Scottish defence league. I have great confidence in the chief constable of Strathclyde Police in pursuing the investigations. I am sure that, in asking his questions, Patrick Harvie was in no way suggesting a lack of confidence in the police service. The investigation will be pursued. One reason why we have much confidence in our police service is that we know that such things will be conducted properly. I have no doubt that the results of the investigation will inform lessons for the future. Parliament is united against the Scottish defence league’s activities.

The First Minister will be aware of the recent announcement that may result in 50 job losses at the DSM Nutritional Products (UK) manufacturing facility in Dalry, in my constituency, where 370 people are employed and which is the only site outside China at which vitamin C is manufactured. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with DSM about potential job losses? What action will the Scottish Government take to mitigate to the greatest possible extent the consequences of any job losses?

My officials at Scottish Development International and Scottish Enterprise are already working with DSM’s management in Dalry to strengthen employees’ skills by investing in workforce development projects and providing grant funding to improve the manufacturing processes. That should help to safeguard the Dalry site.

Scottish Enterprise will encourage the company to minimise potential redundancies. If the job losses go ahead, we will of course ensure that support and advice are given to all who are affected, through the partnership action for continuing employment programme.

As Kenny Gibson knows, huge successes have recently occurred in the life sciences sector in Scotland, not least in his constituency. However, we will do everything possible to minimise the impact of potential job losses at DSM.

There is anger in West Lothian today about the news that the children’s ward at St John’s hospital is to close for three weeks in July because of a lack of junior doctors. Will the First Minister personally intervene so that we can resolve that appalling situation? Will he agree to meet me and representatives from West Lothian to discuss that vital matter?

I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy would be happy to conduct such a meeting. It is clear that the situation that Neil Findlay describes is unsatisfactory. It is to do with difficulties in recruiting paediatric staff. The recruitment process is under way, as is a new training exercise. Those actions are designed to avoid such things happening at St John’s hospital in the future. I am sure that, in their meeting, the health secretary will be able to reassure Neil Findlay and the people whom he brings along from West Lothian that those actions are well and truly under way.

---

United Kingdom Welfare Budget

3. To ask the First Minister what impact the Scottish Government considers further reductions in the UK welfare budget will have on poverty in Scotland. (S4F-00804)

The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that the reforms that have been made by the United Kingdom coalition Government will reduce benefits receipts in Scotland by some £2.5 billion by 2015. The projections that were made by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in October suggest that, by 2020, child poverty in Scotland could rise by more than 50,000 as a result, and that working-age poverty could rise by more than 160,000 if we directly extrapolate the impact of current UK Government policy.

Those figures are extremely worrying. The Scottish Parliament can rightly be proud of the progress that we have made on a range of social issues. For example, the latest figures show that levels of homelessness have dropped by about a fifth in the past year and that local authorities are set to meet their 2012 commitment.

However, that progress is threatened by the UK Prime Minister’s attempts to portray thousands of low-paid workers and out-of-work youngsters as scroungers who do not deserve the safety net of housing benefit. What can we do to protect Scots from these ill thought out and damaging proposals, which I am sure my colleagues on the Labour benches agree would never have been, and never would be, proposed by any past, present or future Scottish Government?

Joe FitzPatrick has put it very well. General agreement with the proposition that work should pay is shared across the parties. However, there is also a general revulsion in Scotland to attacks on people with disabilities and on young people just because they are young. The Scottish Parliament has united—substantially, at least—to do what it can to mitigate the impact of some of the worst of the welfare cuts that are taking place. In the long term, however, the best answer is perhaps to vote yes in the referendum.

---

British-Irish Council (Meetings)

4. To ask the First Minister what issues were discussed at the most recent meeting of the British-Irish Council. (S4F-00815)

As Roderick Campbell will be aware, I chaired the 18th summit of the British-Irish Council, which was hosted by the Scottish Government in Stirling on Friday. We discussed a range of topics—in particular, ways to encourage increased youth employment throughout these islands, and support for the marine energy sector. All member nations of the council agreed that we should continue to work closely on those important issues and that, following the establishment of the permanent secretariat here in Edinburgh, the British-Irish Council is moving up a gear and is an extremely useful body.

The First Minister has referred to the findings of the latest social attitudes survey, which show that 71 per cent of people trust the Scottish Government to act in Scotland’s best interests, compared to 18 per cent who trust the United Kingdom Government. The same survey also shows that 73 per cent of people think that the Scottish Government ought to have most influence over how Scotland is run. In the light of that survey, what advice will the First Minister give the Prime Minister at the next meeting of the British-Irish Council?

“Let my people go.” [Applause.]

---

Legionella Outbreak (Public Inquiry)

5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will instigate a public inquiry into the outbreak of legionella in Edinburgh. (S4F-00810)

I thank Sarah Boyack for raising the issue. I am sure that the whole Parliament will join me in thanking the staff of NHS Lothian for their effective response to the legionnaire’s disease outbreak. Our condolences are with the families of those who have, sadly, lost their lives to the disease. The Health and Safety Executive and the City of Edinburgh Council are continuing their regulatory investigations into the source of the outbreak. Lothian and Borders Police and the Health and Safety Executive are jointly investigating the circumstances of the two deaths under the direction of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I am sure that Sarah Boyack, as a former minister, knows that the time to consider what steps to take in terms of inquiries will be after the criminal investigations are completed.

Indeed. The evidence that was given to the Health and Sport Committee this week left many questions unanswered. It was suggested that there might be technical changes in relation to cooling towers, which could reduce the possibility of future outbreaks. What will the First Minister do to ensure that we get a proper inquiry so that lessons will be learned swiftly and action will be taken to protect public health? Firefighter Ewan Williamson died on 12 July in Dalry nearly three years ago, but his family and fellow firefighters are still waiting for vital questions to be answered. Can the First Minister promise that communities will not have to wait that long this time and that we will get a proper inquiry and answers to the questions that are of concern to the whole community?

Sarah Boyack will know that the Health and Safety Executive is a reserved function. We are working extremely closely with it, as is Lothian NHS Board, but the Health and Safety Executive has to be allowed to apply its investigation in its own timescale. The member must appreciate that, when potentially criminal matters are involved, the timing of criminal inquiries takes precedence over more general inquiries. Sarah Boyack can be absolutely certain that whatever needs to be done will be done in inquiring into this most serious outbreak.

Thankfully, I can report that there have been no new cases in the past couple of days, but this is an immensely serious outbreak that has resulted in human tragedy. No stone will be left unturned in inquiring into what lessons that can be learned, once the timescale of criminal investigation has been met.

---

Plastic Bags (Charges)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on charging shoppers 5p per plastic carrier bag. (S4F-00811)

As Jimmy McGrigor knows, we are consulting on a proposal—[Interruption.] As Jamie McGrigor knows—[Laughter]—we are consulting on a proposal to require retailers to charge for all single-use carrier bags, thereby encouraging reuse and cutting a very visible form of litter and its impact on wildlife and local economies. Any proceeds would be directed to charity.

That proposal is part of the safeguarding Scotland’s resources programme, which Richard Lochhead launched yesterday to consult on a programme of measures on effective use of materials. As Jamie McGrigor will be aware, there is a big focus on helping businesses to innovate and cut costs, which could help them save up to £1.4 billion a year by using raw materials more efficiently and cutting waste effectively.

We all agree with the aim of reducing use of plastic, but does the First Minister agree that efforts should be focused on the carrot rather than on the stick—that we should focus on incentives rather than just impose yet another tax on hard-pressed Scottish consumers? What is his response to the concerns of the Scottish Retail Consortium, whose director has stated that an obsession with carrier bags, which account for a fraction of 1 per cent of household waste, must not get in the way of the much more significant goals, such as reducing the carbon footprint of thousands of everyday products?

If the First Minister’s Government goes ahead with this punitive tax on Scottish people, will the funds that are raised be used to tackle the spread of litter, which he has mentioned and which is the real cause of the problem? Will the funds also be used to encourage use of reusable bags, such as this lovely ladybird bag that I have brought into the chamber to show members? [Laughter.]

I think that Jamie McGrigor knows that I do not like props. I certainly do not like advertising, either.

That was slightly more effective when the member mentioned it on the radio programme that I heard the other day. I am sure that no promotion is involved in Jamie McGrigor’s demonstration.

While listening to the radio programme, I was rather puzzled by one reference that Jamie McGrigor made. He said that Scotland is “too wet” to introduce the policy. I was disappointed by that because, as he knows, the policy has been successfully introduced in Wales. I looked at the average rainfall in Aberdeen and Glasgow, and I am delighted to report that it is less than rainfall in Cardiff. If it is too wet in Scotland, I presume that it must be too wet in Cardiff, which leaves Jamie McGrigor to explain why the policy has been so successful in Wales.

Finally, let me also say that we are not the only people considering the measure. It is not happening just in Wales; I understand that our friends in the south are also considering such a measure. It was reported in The Independent on Sunday on 24 June—just last Sunday—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has defied the Prime Minister over the introduction of a similar bag tax. I am sure that Jamie McGrigor is pleased to know that he is not only questioning me but defying his own Prime Minister.

That ends First Minister’s questions.