Plenary, 29 Oct 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, October 29, 2009

Official Report 736KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1953)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. This evening I will attend an ecumenical service of commemoration for members of the armed forces who have been killed or wounded on active service. This is an appropriate time of year to remember all those who have been killed or injured in service of their country in conflicts past and present.

I am happy to echo the First Minister's comments about our armed forces and those who serve in them.

It is not enough for our First Minister to have a purpose. According to his website, his Purpose—with a capital P—is

"to create a more successful country where all of Scotland can flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth."

If that is his purpose, why are the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses all saying this week that the Scottish National Party is doing more harm than good to Scottish business?

Along with the finance secretary, I was going to welcome the Labour Party's Damascene conversion to accelerated capital spending, which, incidentally, is supported by all the organisations that the Labour leader listed. Let us welcome that developing consensus in Scottish society.

The CBI seems to have a disagreement with the Government, particularly about minimum pricing for alcohol. I hope that in the forthcoming debate we can reconcile such disagreements, whether with a business organisation such as the CBI, or internally with an Opposition party, for example. The best way to get through such disagreements is to debate them and recognise that we all have a huge interest in the human, business and economic cost of rebalancing Scotland's relationship with alcohol.

I have written to the chancellor to say that he should consider accelerating capital spending, but if and only if the SNP gets its budget sorted out.

It is not just the CBI that says the SNP is getting it wrong, and the disagreement is not just about minimum pricing. The Federation of Small Businesses says that small businesses are receiving much better support from the Labour Government in England than from the SNP in Scotland. The Institute of Directors says that it is disturbed by the cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link and the cuts to enterprise budgets. When will the First Minister start listening to those organisations?

I listen carefully to the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland. The FSB tells me that it is severely worried that some parties in this Parliament do not recognise the importance of the small business bonus that has assisted tens of thousands of small businesses the length and breadth of Scotland.

In the interests of the developing consensus in the chamber, as Iain Gray pursues his questions he will, no doubt, take the opportunity to say that, along with accelerated capital spending, he understands the vital lifeline nature of the small business bonus to small companies the length and breadth of this country.

Labour is already listening to small businesses and we understand their importance in the economy. That is why the Federation of Small Businesses says that small businesses get more support in England under Labour than they get in Scotland under the SNP.

This is not just about the public debate about the economy. Today, we read about the First Minister's personal approach to important business meetings. He is

"aggressive … unwilling to listen to reason …. extremely rude"—

in fact, those are all the signs of somebody who has lost the plot. That is damning stuff.

I do not care whether the First Minister damages his own reputation, but I care whether he damages Scotland's reputation. Does he really think that that is the appropriate way to represent Scotland abroad to companies that employ thousands of Scottish workers?

I am not certain that it was the best idea in the world for Iain Gray to quote the Daily Mail. I read the sister paper of the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday, on 25 October, which quotes—unlike the article that Iain Gray mentioned—a "senior source" in Labour as saying:

"He is just not visible. Name one big idea he's associated with—you can't. No one can … he hasn't got any."

Another source said:

"There is a leadership vacuum at the top of the party."

If Iain Gray is going to resort to quoting newspapers, he should be a wee bit careful about which newspapers he wants to quote.

When the First Minister decides how he is going to answer questions, he should think about the topic—"It's the economy, stupid."

It simply cannot be that everyone is out of step except the First Minister. Is it not the truth that Alex Salmond is a banker who got it wrong on the banks; an economist who is getting it wrong on the economy; and a Scottish First Minister who is getting it wrong for Scotland? Never mind "The Purpose"; when will the First Minister realise that he is The Problem—with a capital T and a capital P?

Iain Gray is an Opposition leader who is struggling to such an extent that he has to appoint 29 shadow spokespeople to his team, out of a group of 46. I congratulate him on building a majority within his party on the payroll vote.

Iain Gray last asked about the economy on 11 September, when he expressed legitimate concern about 300 potential job losses at T-Mobile in Larbert. In the atmosphere of consensus that is developing around the economy, I am delighted to tell him that we acted to save those jobs three months earlier. I am even more delighted to tell him that, two weeks ago, David Turner, the chief executive of that operation, was able to write to me to say that another 170 jobs are to be created. He went on to thank, in glowing terms, the Scottish Government for its work in securing those vital jobs for Falkirk and Larbert. Even if Iain Gray will not appoint me to a job, I know that he will join me in welcoming that jobs boost for an important area of Scotland.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1954)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State in the near future.

The irony of Labour masquerading as the party of business is obvious to everyone except Iain Gray. This is a man who was such an impressive minister for enterprise that he lost his seat.

The question should be addressed to the First Minister, Ms Goldie.

This week, the Scottish National Party's pretence of being a business-friendly party collapsed. Iain McMillan of CBI Scotland said:

"At the moment there are more harmful things for business than positive ones from the Scottish Government. The SNP is talking the talk, but not walking the walk."

David Watt, head of the Institute of Directors in Scotland, criticised the treatment of Diageo, and Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce expressed concern that growing the Scottish economy is not the Government's first priority.

The SNP Government has lost the confidence of the business community in Scotland, and the business-friendly image of the SNP at the election was clearly just another charade to get votes. Why has the First Minister allowed that dreadful situation to develop, or are all those business organisations wrong?

Annabel Goldie mentioned concern about the treatment of Diageo. That concern was illustrated by the fact that I went on the march and rally in defence of Diageo jobs in Kilmarnock. I remember that march and rally very well, because marching beside me was Annabel Goldie.

Perhaps the Institute of Directors in Scotland was concerned about the criticism that Diageo brought on itself. Like Annabel Goldie that day in Kilmarnock, the vast majority of Scotland was concerned about the treatment of the Diageo workers.

The First Minister and I may have jointly demonstrated to the workers of Kilmarnock that we were concerned and that we wished to represent those concerns to Diageo, but the difference between us is that I do not believe in telling business what to do. The First Minister thought that he could get away with that and failed.

This is the business-friendly First Minister who on the one hand campaigned to save Diageo whisky jobs while, on the other, he pursued a minimum pricing policy that will destroy whisky jobs. This is the First Minister who wanted to introduce an anti-business local income tax and who said that he could save the Dunfermline Building Society for £25 million, when the actual cost was £1.6 billion. This is the First Minister who leads a party that is hostile to the private sector, as was made abundantly clear at his recent party conference. And, yes, this is the First Minister who tramps over to France and causes offence to the bosses of one of Scotland's major employers.

In these tough economic times, Scotland needs a business-friendly Government, not a fractured relationship with business. What is the First Minister's big new idea to help business in Scotland?

We can start with the Conservative and Unionist Party joining the growing consensus in favour of capital acceleration so that we can keep jobs in Scotland next year. I would welcome such a conversion.

If Annabel Goldie was not seeking to change Diageo's mind about its treatment of the workforces at Kilmarnock and Port Dundas, what on earth was she doing at the rally? Presumably she did not go to the rally just to show her presence; she went believing that it was part of a campaign that would help to persuade Diageo to stay loyal to its Kilmarnock workforce. She was therefore trying to influence and change a business decision.

As far as the meeting with Pernod Ricard is concerned, I have known Mr Patrick Ricard for a number of years and we have a strong and positive relationship. In our meeting, he gave me a number of gifts, all of which will be suitably declared when the time is right. However, the gift I was most impressed with was the booklet that I have before me, "Alcohol: I'm in Control", which has very much been his personal project.

The booklet says that the company intends to pursue premium brands

"and hence promote the reasonable enjoyment of our high quality products.

While our products can form an enjoyable part of our lifestyle when we choose to consume them, we also know that excessive or inappropriate consumption can cause harm. That is why we have adopted a proactive attitude to promoting moderation and responsibility when people drink our products."—[Interruption.]

Order.

It is certainly correct to say that Pernod Ricard is not advocating a minimum pricing policy, but it is also true to say that it does not want to peddle cheap booze. The challenge for us as a Parliament is to recognise not only the economic benefits but the health benefits of having a more responsible attitude to alcohol. The challenge for all industries, including the drinks industry, is to live up to—as I am sure Pernod Ricard will—the fine sentiments that are published in the booklet.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1955)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland

The challenge is to understand how the Tories can attack the First Minister on business and then vote for the Scottish National Party's motion on the economy this afternoon.

There is another Royal Mail strike today. People worry that there will not be much of the Royal Mail left to deliver letters to every part of Scotland, for the same price, for much longer. Why did the Scottish Government give an £8 million postal contract to TNT and not to the Royal Mail?

As Tavish Scott should know, the process was administered under competitive tender arrangements. We have an obligation to take account of value for money. Under the same proposal, I was delighted that a contract worth twice as much was awarded to the Royal Mail. That was a sensible decision that was fully in line with public expenditure guidelines.

On the current dispute, I hope that we can agree that it would be beneficial to the company and the entire community if a resolution were found. I also hope that Tavish Scott believes, as I do, that the shadow of privatisation is one of the underlying causes of the dispute. If that shadow were to be removed, a resolution might be easier to find.

I certainly agree with the last point.

In March, when the United Kingdom HM Revenue and Customs gave a contract to TNT, and not to the Royal Mail, the SNP's spokesman spoke of concerns and said:

"A private partner will only be concerned with profit, and Royal Mail must not lose its social focus".

When the UK Department for Work and Pensions gave a contract to TNT, the SNP said that there was "outrage" at the decision, that

"effectively the government"

was

"abandoning the Post Office to its fate",

and that

"The government must display a commitment to our postal service by using its services."

I could not agree more, so what is the difference between the Scottish Government and the Labour Government in London?

It is probably that we awarded a £17 million contract to the Royal Mail.

I am glad that Tavish Scott agrees with me that the shadow of privatisation should be removed from the Royal Mail. That is an important aspect in finding a resolution to the dispute. I hope that he also agrees that if he is going to claim that we should not follow the procurement directive, he had better start explaining where the £2 million that would otherwise have been lost to our public services in Scotland would come from.—[Interruption.]

Order.

Incidentally, given the growing consensus on capital acceleration, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will now join the Labour Party in talking about the importance of building that important initiative into next year's spending plans. If not, will Tavish Scott be left to explain how week in, week out he can call for extra expenditure but never—not on a single occasion—say where on earth the revenue will come from?

I will take a supplementary question from Sarah Boyack.

In light of the £600,000 loss that was made on the gathering, I raise the concerns of the chair of the Edinburgh Destination Marketing Alliance, on which a debt of £300,000 has been dumped. The DEMA simply does not have the wherewithal to meet private sector debts. Given the raft of unanswered questions and the need to learn lessons from the loss, does the First Minister agree that the Auditor General for Scotland should be asked to examine the issue?

I agree with the decision of the City of Edinburgh Council to secure the future of the gathering. I am perfectly happy to put this in the members' library: the gathering—the organisation and the event that it staged—generated more than £10 million of revenue for the Scottish economy and several hundred full-time equivalent jobs.

It is extremely wise of the City of Edinburgh Council to want to repeat the gathering event. That will guarantee for the capital city and indeed for all of Scotland many millions of pounds of revenue from an important tourist event.

I would have hoped that Sarah Boyack, as a local member, would have supported jobs and investment in the city of Edinburgh, as Scottish National Party members do.

---

Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)

To ask the First Minister whether the recent opinion from the European Court of Justice on tobacco pricing affects the Scottish Government's plans to introduce a minimum price for alcohol. (S3F-1974)

The directive in the case to which the member refers is specifically about the excise duty on tobacco and has nothing to do with alcohol products. It is, therefore, entirely inappropriate and irrelevant to transfer the comments in the opinion to the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol for public health reasons. However, the European Commission has given an indication of its attitude to minimum pricing. In a written statement to Catherine Stihler MEP, it confirmed that European Union legislation does not prohibit member states from setting minimum retail prices for alcoholic drinks on public health grounds.

The First Minister will be aware that some organisations have questioned whether minimum pricing for alcohol is compatible with EU law. He referred to the statement that the European Commission has already issued. Is he aware that the Commission has also stated that two key criteria must be complied with if minimum pricing on alcohol is to comply with EU trade treaties? First, minimum pricing must apply to all relevant traders within a national territory. Secondly, it must have the same impact on domestic and imported products, if they are discounted. Can the First Minister confirm that the policy that the Scottish Government is pursuing will comply with those two key criteria?

We are aware of all the issues that must be considered to ensure that the arrangements and the specific price that is set are fair and proportionate, to be consistent with European law. They must be non-discriminatory and must exemplify and illustrate a substantial health benefit.

I hope that, before the matter is discussed fully, all members will take the opportunity to look at the University of Sheffield study for Scotland that was published on 28 September. The study identified substantial financial savings in the economy, running to billions of pounds a year, from a minimum price of 40p per unit of alcohol. It demonstrated that a minimum pricing policy would have substantial health benefits and postulated that it could save thousands of lives in Scotland by preventing unnecessary and early deaths.

When we weigh up, as we will, the considerations that lie behind the proposal, we should look at the substantial economic benefit—there is also a crime argument—of redressing Scotland's attitude to alcohol. Let us also remember the public health benefits that the University of Sheffield's report has identified. It is not that often that a Parliament decides on an issue that affects the lives of many thousands of our fellow citizens. I hope that all members will address this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.

I am aware that the fact and, indeed, the content of legal advice are not published by the Scottish Government. However, the First Minister has acknowledged the concern that exists about the European Court of Justice judgment on tobacco pricing and its potential impact on minimum pricing. Given the seriousness of the issue that Scotland has with alcohol, which the First Minister has set out clearly, will he follow the precedent set by the previous Scottish Executive and share the substance of legal advice with party leaders, which would enable progress to be made on considering minimum pricing?

I understand that we have already had discussions with Cathy Jamieson about how we can try to do that. I hope and believe that such information can be made available to members to enable us to discuss and address the issue in a serious way. I hope that we will be able to pursue with Jackie Baillie the discussions that were held with Cathy Jamieson, to see what can be done to provide members with the maximum amount of information.

---

Grid Upgrade (Beauly to Denny Power Line)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government intends to announce its decision on the proposed grid upgrade between Beauly and Denny. (S3F-1975)

The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism will make a determination before the end of the year on the applications from Scottish Power Transmission Ltd and Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Ltd to install an overhead power line between Beauly and Denny. We will notify the applicants, the Scottish Parliament and its committees and other interested parties of the decision as soon as it is made.

Does the First Minister recognise that what purported to be an informed leak about the decision last weekend, far from softening up opposition to the upgrade, simply provided a platform for all the arguments that have already been heard in 105 days of public inquiry? Ministers have now had the report of that inquiry for 10 times as long as they took to make a decision on the Donald Trump golf course proposal. Will the First Minister now end the uncertainty and commit to an official announcement on a positive decision on the Beauly to Denny line, not just before the end of the year but, say, before the end of next week?

The minister has indicated that a decision will be made by the end of the year, and I am delighted to confirm that to Lewis Macdonald. I saw an illustration in the press of the Beauly to Denny inquiry and another of the Trump inquiry. I point out to Lewis Macdonald that—as he probably knows—the two inquiries were held under different pieces of legislation and had different timescales. The Beauly to Denny inquiry was held under the Electricity Act 1989 and took a year to hold its hearings. The minister is duty-bound to consider all the evidence that came before the inquiry over that time. I am delighted to say that the Trump inquiry took place according to the new, streamlined hearings system under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

At the Marcliffe hotel in Aberdeen.

Order.

At the Marcliffe in Aberdeen.

Order, Mr Rumbles.

We detected an enthusiasm across the chamber, even from the Liberal Democrats, for streamlining the planning process in Scotland. The public local inquiry, which was held to the satisfaction of all those who were represented at it, took just over two weeks.

I hope that Lewis Macdonald can understand the difference in timescale between a public local inquiry under the new streamlined procedures, with just over two weeks being required, and a public inquiry that was held under legislation that is so beloved by the Labour Party and which took almost a year.

Can the First Minister tell us what importance the renewable energy that can be produced in the north of Scotland has for meeting the challenging Scottish and United Kingdom climate change targets?

Rob Gibson has identified an important aspect of the matter. The natural resources around the north of Scotland account for perhaps a quarter, not of the UK's marine potential but of Europe's potential marine electricity resource from offshore wind and tidal power. That is an enormously important part of the future economy of this country.

Rob Gibson is quite right to say that it is not just our own hugely ambitious targets that require us to mobilise that energy. If the UK is to have any hope whatever of reaching its targets, that huge energy resource from the north of Scotland will have to be mobilised. He is right to point to the strategic importance of that fantastic resource for the economy of Scotland in the future.

---

Influenza A(H1N1) (Health Workers)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government is satisfied with the progress of the influenza A(H1N1) vaccination programme and rates of uptake among health workers. (S3F-1966)

The vaccination programme is on track, and I commend the efforts made throughout the national health service to prepare for and deliver the programme on schedule.

At its launch on 21 October, we advised that the programme would commence through a phased roll-out. We are now ensuring that health boards and general practices receive supplies of the vaccine as soon as they become available. Our aim continues to be to have everyone in the priority groups vaccinated by Christmas.

Information on uptake rates among health care workers will become available as the programme progresses. We are keen to ensure that health and social care workers come forward for vaccination at the earliest opportunity in order to protect themselves and the patients who are in their care.

If the First Minister regards uptake by health workers as important—an article in The Guardian last week highlighted that in England and Wales all the senior people involved are concerned about the critical nature of the matter—does he share my concern that in her statement to the Parliament this morning the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said that "anecdotal evidence suggests" that uptake is good? If that aspect is so important, would it be more appropriate for us to have real figures rather than anecdotal hints?

I thought that I had dealt with that issue in my answer. I said that information on uptake rates will become available as the programme progresses, when we can move from anecdotal accounts to information that will be available to Ross Finnie and to the Parliament.

Ross Finnie will have noticed the variety of supportive comments from key health professionals, which were co-ordinated on the launch of the vaccination programme. Comments from the British Medical Association Scotland, the Unite union and the Royal College of Nursing Scotland were co-ordinated precisely to encourage uptake, to ensure that we do not face the difficulties that have been reported anecdotally in England and Wales. I salute the organisations for joining the Government and, I hope, all members of the Parliament in encouraging uptake of the vaccine among health service workers, which is crucial for the workers themselves and for the patients who are in their care.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—