Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-817)
Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.
Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning failed five times on radio to provide a cost for reducing class sizes to 18 in primary 1 to 3. Perhaps the First Minister can tell us. How much will it cost and when will it happen?
Very fortunately, this Government has put substantial resources into local authorities and education above and beyond what the previous Administration planned. As Wendy Alexander well knows, page 5, paragraph 1 of the historic concordat with local government in Scotland makes it clear that
I am still looking for clarity on the timetable and the cost. In September, the First Minister was asked in the chamber to confirm that his class size pledge would be delivered in the lifetime of this parliamentary session. He replied, "Yes, I can"—no ifs, buts or qualifications: delivery by 2011. The price tag, according to the Scottish National Party manifesto, was to be £210 million. Yesterday, Scotland's education directors said that the cost would be £420 million—double the original SNP estimate. Are Scotland's education directors wrong?
Scotland's education directors, like the rest of local government in Scotland, are now working for the first time in full co-operation with central Government through the concordat. Wendy Alexander should acknowledge that last year, even before the comprehensive spending review increased local government's share of spending over its course for the first time in a generation, extra resources were put into both capital building and teacher numbers in Scotland. [Interruption.]
Order. There is too much noise.
I hope that Wendy Alexander will now concede that the concordat's intention to deliver this commitment is the way forward for class sizes in Scotland. Perhaps, even now, she will have the humility to accept that the Labour-Liberal Administration failed to deliver on every class size reduction target that it set in eight years.
Last year, the First Minister was willing to provide both the timetable and the price tag for the class size promise. It is the First Minister's promise and the First Minister's responsibility. He really cannot hide behind the concordat, not least when COSLA, the SNP education convener of COSLA, Scotland's education directors and headteachers across the country all say that the money is not there. So let me try again: how much will it cost?
Wendy Alexander publicly doubted whether class size reduction was an effective policy. I welcome her conversion to the SNP initiative on class size reduction. Page 5 of the concordat states that local government will show progress year on year—
Answer the question!
Order. I think that the First Minister knows what the question is.
You must not stop me teasing them in full stream, Presiding Officer.
The First Minister might know what the question is, but we have certainly not had an answer. Week in, week out, we get no straight answers. First Minister's question time has become entirely predictable. When it comes to respect for the Parliament, it is unacceptable that week in, week out, no figures are given.
I will tell Wendy Alexander what is costed: the £800 million a year that the people of Scotland will be paying for Labour's private finance initiative disasters. As she has raised the subject, last week, when I was giving her straight answers, she claimed that the non-profit-distributing model was a Labour invention—
Answer the question!
That is enough. We do not need any more sedentary interventions.
I have a statement from Councillor David Alexander, the leader of Falkirk Council who pioneered the NPD model, who says:
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-818)
I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.
The Scottish Government promised a lot during the past year and is faltering on a number of fronts, but I give credit where credit is due on one area: the Scottish Government's willingness to chart a new direction in the battle against drug abuse, which was evident in Fergus Ewing's statement to the Parliament this morning. I hope that much of the detail of that will be constructively debated next week.
A reason for the increased finds is perhaps that the matter is being approached rather differently from how it was approached in the past. However, I accept that drug abuse in prisons is a serious issue, which is requiring great attention from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Scottish Prison Service—hence the enforcement of matters that were perhaps not enforced to the same degree in the past. I do not deny for a second that there is a serious problem throughout the prison service.
In our Scottish jails, the facts speak for themselves. Drug finds in prisons are soaring and yet, unbelievably, no record is kept of either the substances or the quantities that are found. How do we know what is going on? People outside are astonished at how drugs are circulating so freely in prisons, of all places. Surely the time has come not just to get prisoners clean in our prisons but to clean up our prisons. Why are our jails becoming the 21st century drug dens of Scotland? The Scottish Conservatives have published a raft of robust measures that are based on a zero tolerance approach to drugs in jails. Will the First Minister back them?
I will be very happy for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to examine Annabel Goldie's party's proposals in detail, to arrange a meeting to discuss them, and to compare them with the implementation strategy that is in place to see whether there are grounds and room for improvement.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-819)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Before the election, the First Minister talked to a newspaper about the new Forth crossing. He said:
As the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has said a number of times in the chamber and elsewhere, we will specify the funding of the Forth bridge in this calendar year. For the Government to be in the position first to approve and then to specify the funding of that iconic project is a major advance on the previous Labour-Liberal Administration, which could not even decide whether to build the bridge in the first place.
The First Minister should not get his hopes up for the bonds, because his finance secretary has been telling everyone all week that bonds are not possible. The word "shambles" does not begin to capture the position. Before the election, the First Minister said that patriotic Scottish families would be able to buy resonant bridge bonds. Afterwards, his Government says that it is not legal to use bonds for nationally directed purposes. He has promised to build a £4 billion bridge, but his preferred finance plan has been ruled out by his finance secretary. What evidence can the First Minister give us today that his Government has the slightest idea how it is going to pay for the Forth bridge? Or is he scared to tell us, in case the next great kite that he flies is shot down by his finance secretary as well?
The finance secretary is taking forward not just the financing of the Forth bridge but the £13,000 million of capital infrastructure projects that are laid out in the capital investment plan for Scotland. Perhaps, at some stage, the Liberal-Labour coalition will hark back to the previous eight years of delay, prevarication and total absence of a strategy for public capital investment.
In light of yesterday's announcement regarding the ending of the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry service, what will the Government do to attract new operators to the route, and possibly to extend it? What measures will the Government take to support hauliers and holidaymakers who would have used the ferry service, and to encourage them to consider other forms of public transport rather than resorting to their cars?
The Government has been in discussions with the Attica Group on the issue since January and I have made visits to its headquarters in Greece because we regard the matter as extremely serious. We believe that there is a commercial future for the ferry service, which is vital for Scotland. That view is shared by Forth Ports, which we have been helping in its discussions with other potential operators.
The First Minister is aware of the efforts of the families of those who were killed and injured in the Stockline disaster to secure a public inquiry into the cause of the tragedy and the lessons to be learned from it.
Along with Patricia Ferguson and other members, I was extremely keen for the inquiry to be established, and that was achieved. We are also determined to ensure that the families get the appropriate costs and representation when the inquiry proceeds. I know that Patricia Ferguson has been engaged in meetings with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the matter. I would be delighted to have further meetings to progress matters. Anything that can be done within the framework of the law and procedure to effect that will be done.
Fuel Costs
To ask the First Minister what discussions Scottish ministers have had with Her Majesty's Government regarding the escalating cost of fuel. (S3F-835)
Scottish ministers have on-going correspondence with the United Kingdom Government to highlight the effect that escalating fuel costs have on Scotland. We will continue to press the UK Government to take steps to mitigate the problems that are presented by rising fuel prices. I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 10 March, asking him not to implement the planned increases in fuel duty and to consider introducing a fuel duty regulator. I am still awaiting a reply.
Does the First Minister agree that there is a bittersweet irony in the fact that Scottish families are struggling to pay utility bills and fill petrol tanks while Scotland cannot reap the benefits of increasing oil and gas revenues as long as control of those revenues remains with the UK Treasury? Will the First Minister outline what steps the Government is taking to remedy the situation and ensure that Scotland does not miss out on the reported benefits of the £4 billion tax windfall that increased oil and gas revenues are set to deliver for Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling?
I remind the chamber that the £4,000 million windfall is in addition to the £10,000 million that was already expected from oil revenues. Given the extent of that windfall, which was not predicted only a few weeks ago in the chancellor's budget, it seems not unreasonable to believe that there is plenty of room for manoeuvre to implement policies to reduce the impact of sky-high fuel prices on the people and industries of Scotland.
Does the First Minister accept that Shetland Islands Council faces an additional bill this year of £1.2 million because of the rising fuel prices to pay for the interisland ferries and bus services? [Interruption.] Shetland thinks that this is important, even if some members do not. Those facts are familiar to other local authorities. Given that it is absolutely within his Administration's ability to do something about that, will the First Minister provide assistance to the local authorities facing the additional costs?
I believe that, as a Parliament and a country, we must make a claim on the huge additional resources flowing into the United Kingdom Treasury as a result of the sky-high fuel prices. That must be done because that is where the financial flexibility is available to meet some of the pressures that Tavish Scott rightly mentioned. [Interruption.]
Order.
Communities on the islands and in the north of Scotland face particular pressures, but every community and industry in Scotland is starting to feel those pressures. [Interruption.]
We are used to the First Minister being voluble in answering questions for which he has no responsibility. Will he perhaps answer a question for which he has responsibility? He will be aware that there are real-term cuts to the fuel poverty programmes funded by the Government. Will he reverse that decision and enhance the programmes in order to support those who are affected by the rise in fuel prices?
The premise of the question is totally inaccurate: there are not real-term cuts to fuel poverty programmes. In the initiative to reform the fuel poverty action group, we see a determination by this Government to discharge its responsibilities—would that the Westminster Government occasionally gave a thought to fuel poverty in Scotland.
Common Fisheries Policy
To ask the First Minister what legal advice the Scottish Government has sought regarding the Scottish Government's position on withdrawing from the common fisheries policy. (S3F-829)
No one seriously believes that the common fisheries policy has brought benefits to Scottish fishermen or fish stocks. We are committed to withdrawing from that damaging policy.
I refer the First Minister to the question: what legal advice has the Scottish Government sought regarding the Scottish Government's position on withdrawing from the common fisheries policy? Has that legal advice been sought and, if so, what is it?
I refer Karen Gillon to a rather obvious point. The circumstance in which Scotland will be able to effect that policy is when Scotland becomes an independent country. Then, there will be no legal obstacle to this Government or any Scottish Government acting in the interests of not just the fishing community but the people of Scotland.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I will take points of order at the end of First Minister's question time.
Does the First Minister regret the way in which last week's announcement on fishing quotas was handled? I understand that the failure to consult more fully prior to the announcement has caused frustration in the industry. Is he concerned that, by stirring up yet further tension between his Administration and Westminster, he risks sucking the Scottish fishing industry into a potentially damaging dispute?
I do not agree with John Scott's analysis. There is no serious dispute that matters of quota management are entirely within the province of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government and we should give effect to that. John Scott should surely understand that not just some but all fishing organisations in Scotland support the move to try to vest fishing quota in the communities that have working, practising fishermen. The alternative is to allow a situation to develop in Scotland that has already developed in England, where the vast majority of quota is owned and pursued not by English fishing interests but by the fishing interests of the Netherlands, Spain, France and other countries.
The country is entitled to know how we would stand in the unlikely event of an independent Scotland. If the First Minister failed in his attempt to renegotiate the common fisheries policy, would he accept the common fisheries policy or would he leave the European Union?
We have already demonstrated our ability as a Government to achieve substantial changes in the impact of the common fisheries policy in terms of quota management. I am delighted that the new constitutional affairs spokesman of the Labour Party has brought such certainty to Labour policy on the constitution. We have now found out that he does not think that an independent Scotland is likely. Believe me that, if his Government in London continues in the performance that we have seen over recent years, an independent Scotland is very likely indeed.
Financial Services Sector (Support)
To ask the First Minister, in global financial services week, how the Scottish Government is supporting the financial services sector. (S3F-820)
From day one, the Government has fully supported Scotland's financial services industry. We recognise the key role that the industry plays in the Scottish economy and we are happy to work closely within the unique partnership of the Financial Services Advisory Board, which I am delighted to chair and on which I am joined by both John Swinney and Jim Mather. Global financial services week was initiated by the board.
Order.
I am delighted that Derek Brownlee has given me the opportunity to inform him and Parliament that, later this afternoon, I will announce an important new initiative arising directly out of that partnership working. Our intention is to create a financial services skills gateway for Scotland. It will draw together key partners that are committed to the success of Scotland's financial services, including the Government, the trade unions, Scottish Financial Enterprise and others such as our universities and further education colleges. I have asked David Thorburn—the chief operating officer of the Clydesdale Bank—in a personal capacity to lead the industry group to take forward that initiative.
I thank the First Minister for his very comprehensive reply. He reeled off a whole list of senior figures in the industry, many of whom he meets in his day-to-day business. Can he name just one of them who supports his Government's plans for a local income tax?
I can tell that the leading figures in the industry support the Government, as demonstrated by The Scotsman's poll of only three weeks ago, which showed, if I remember correctly—I am open to correction by Derek Brownlee—that there had been a 40 per cent movement towards support for Scottish independence. I do not know whether Derek Brownlee was counted in the figures but, nonetheless, it is an interesting statistic.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You selected a question from me to be asked this week about what legal advice had been sought with regard to Scotland withdrawing from the common fisheries policy. That question was not lodged in a vacuum or with regard to the situation in an independent Scotland. It was lodged because the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment's consultation document on fishing quotas, which was published last week, said that the Scottish Government is seeking to leave the common fisheries policy. I therefore asked a specific question about the situation that pertains now, not in an independent Scotland. It is discourteous to the chamber that the First Minister chose not to answer that question, even if the answer would have been "none".
As I have repeatedly said, such matters are not points of order. The whole chamber was aware of the question that you asked—as you said, it was clear and succinct. The First Minister would be equally aware of the question, and the whole chamber also heard the response.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time