Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, May 10, 2012

Official Report 1109KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

We now come to First Minister’s question time. Question 1 is from Johann Lamont. [Applause.]

---

Engagements

1. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am absolutely delighted to be here and that the local government elections went so successfully and smoothly.

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00663)

I call the First Minister. [Applause.]

Wait a minute. We should just stop there, should we not?

Later today, I will speak to the managing director of the German company BASF, which, with the support of the Scottish Government, has today agreed to an £18 million investment in the Scottish company Equateq for a new manufacturing base on the Isle of Lewis. That will create 90 new high-quality jobs and secure the 10 that are currently there.

The creation of 90 jobs in the Western Isles is an extremely welcome development. To put the impact on the economy into context, in a city the size of Edinburgh, that would equate to several thousand jobs. I am sure that all members will welcome those quality jobs coming to an area whose economy is fragile but which is a wonderful part of Scotland.

I am sure that the First Minister is aware that the Western Isles are very dear to my heart and to my family. Perhaps people will welcome this announcement even though they are sceptical about some of the decisions that the Scottish Government has made in recent times that have had a significant detrimental impact on the Western Isles.

What lessons has the First Minister learned from last week’s local elections?

Unlike some members of the Labour Party perhaps, I think that simple arithmetic is probably in order. I am delighted that the Scottish National Party emerged with 424 seats around Scotland, which was a gain of 62 seats. I know that Johann Lamont is very pleased to have emerged with 394 seats, which was a gain of 46 seats. However, when a party increases its number of seats and its lead over its main rival and wins an election, there is a reasonable lesson for it to learn. For the Scottish National Party, it is not just an arithmetic lesson; we celebrate that political success.

For once, the First Minister has indeed answered the question, because his answer is, “What lessons? None.” Let me tell him what I have learned. I have learned that people do not like it when a party’s priorities are put before theirs, and people’s priorities are jobs, childcare, schools and public services. The First Minister has put Scotland on pause by getting rid of nurses, teachers and local government workers, and the people of Scotland sent him a clear message last week. Yes, they had a message for us—this is about listening and learning—which was that we have made progress, but the Scottish Labour Party has a long way to go. [Interruption.] Yes, it is about learning lessons. However, what really took the gilt off the gingerbread for me was that while we had some remarkable results and were gaining support, the First Minister was losing support at twice the rate. Why was that?

I was trying to catch up there.

The SNP got more than 500,000 votes and Labour got 487,000 votes in Scotland. I do not know whether Johann Lamont saw the very interesting map on BBC’s “Newsnight”, which showed where each party is represented in wards across Scotland, but basically it was covered in yellow right across the country and indicated that the SNP, unlike the other parties, is truly the national party of Scotland and is represented in every area.

Johann Lamont asked me about the lessons to learn. The key lesson for all politicians is on turnout, which although it was not nearly as low as was suggested in some media outlets, nonetheless was less than 40 per cent, at about 38 per cent. That is not an acceptable turnout in a democratic ballot. All of us as politicians have work to do to increase the turnout. We can take some satisfaction from the fact that in virtually every area of Scotland we managed, this time, to conduct a single transferable vote ballot without breakdowns in the counting machines, long delays or a hugely unacceptable number of rejected ballot papers. That was rather better than the Scotland Office managed five years ago, if we care to remember, which led to my belief that the Scotland Office couldnae run a tap, never mind an election campaign.

Nonetheless, a turnout lower than 40 per cent—even if it was higher than many people were expecting or indeed reporting—should provide a lesson for all democratic politicians that we must offer the electorate substantive policies and a positive vision that is worth voting for and must engage more than we do at present to secure higher turnouts and higher democratic participation in future.

There is a direct question to the First Minister in the fact that, in the past year, his support has gone down by a quarter. He has to learn some lessons from that.

Let me give the First Minister some clues. His obsession with the referendum, the delay over the referendum and the attempts to skew the referendum are not popular with the public. The First Minister’s failure to focus on what people care about—jobs, childcare and public services—does not go down well with the public. The fact that the First Minister has more time for Rupert, although sometimes he is Sir Rupert, for Sir Fred, although he is no longer Sir Fred, and for Sir Brian—he is still getting his knighthood, isn’t he?—than he has for the people of this country does not go down well with the public. When will the First Minister start listening?

I am tempted to remind Johann Lamont yet again that I did not make Sir Fred Goodwin Sir Fred Goodwin, or make anybody else Sir anything. In the case of Fred Goodwin, the Labour Party did it.

In the run-up to the election, an SNP Government and a Labour president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities made a hugely important, substantive announcement about the initiative taken by the Government and local authorities to protect the council tax benefit of some of the lowest-income, most vulnerable people in Scotland—something that is not happening south of the border but will happen in Scotland. I thought that that was a very substantial theme and of significance to the 560,000 low-income Scots—half of them pensioners—who will benefit from that substantive move by an SNP Government and a Labour president of COSLA.

Why, then, has the very last thing on Johann Lamont’s mind at First Minister’s question time over the past few weeks been jobs or the initiative on council tax benefit? She has not raised the substantive issues that are meaningful to people. Johann Lamont says to this Government that we should engage. When we do engage, then, and bring forward a substantial initiative that was called for by the Labour Party, let us have some discussion about what it means for the lives of ordinary Scots.

First, on knighthoods, it was only the First Minister who gave Sir Rupert a knighthood. Secondly, on the council tax, I would advise people to look at the small print, because there is a £17 million deficit that will have to be covered by local government.

On the positive message from Labour, it was Labour across the country that spoke about jobs and services at every turn. That is why we got the response we did.

I thought that it was just me that the First Minister does not listen to; in fact, self-evidently it is also the public, his back benchers and perhaps even one or two on his front bench. Who is the senior source, who said,

“The people of Scotland don’t like arrogance”?

Or what about the wise words of self-styled rising star Humza Yousaf—and we need a new rising star after Derek Mackay’s last seven days—who said,

“We’ll lick our wounds. We’ll look at the numbers and see where we went wrong, hopefully”?

Well, we can all live in hope.

The First Minister is not daft. Is it not the case that he won on the arithmetic, as he said, but that in reality, on the politics, he got stuffed?

What a classic illustration of engagement in the substantive issues facing the nation! What a lot of nonsense there is in the framing of that question.

The last thing that Johann Lamont wants to talk about is major jobs announcements or the fact that the latest employment figures show that Scotland has higher employment and lower unemployment than anywhere else in these islands. Those things are never mentioned by the Labour Party because they do not fit the Labour Party’s narrative nor its way of looking only at the negative, pessimistic side of politics. It never celebrates achievement and makes the most grudging acknowledgement of the important jobs boost to the Western Isles. I politely remind Johann Lamont that the Labour Party never introduced the road equivalent tariff or did anything else for the Western Isles that are obviously so dear to her heart.

The larger number of SNP councillors, the larger number of gains that we achieved, our doubling of our lead over the Labour Party and our winning the popular vote and having a councillor in virtually every ward across the country mean that if Johann Lamont wants to keep celebrating Labour Party defeats in Scotland, that will be fine by the Scottish National Party.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00655)

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

The First Minister says that he wants to engage in a substantive issue so let us do so. When ministers allowed universities to charge students from the rest of the United Kingdom, they said that the whole system would be based on where someone lives. Anyone who lives in England, Wales or Northern Ireland would have to pay up to £9,000. A week ago, all that started to unravel when Northern Irish pupils were told that possession of an Irish passport could result in their fees being met by Scottish taxpayers. Yesterday, we found out that any UK citizen who has an Irish granny can get in for free through that loophole. It now emerges that anyone with a grandparent from any of the other 26 European Union nations could have their fees paid by Scottish taxpayers. The Scottish Government’s defence for such a massive amount of confusion appears to be that no one has noticed yet so it will all be all right.

That is not good enough. We need to clear up the confusion. We need to fix the Guinness loophole.

Mike Russell said that fees would be paid according to where a person lives. It now appears that what matters is the passport that a person holds. Which is it?

Students who hold United Kingdom or EU nationality have been able to apply to universities for fee support for many years. That also applies to those with joint citizenship of the Irish Republic. There is no new entitlement under those arrangements.

What is new is the Tory and Liberal UK Government’s extraordinary and disastrous decision to introduce tuition fees of £9,000 per year. That is what created the issue that the Government must deal with. If we wind the clock back a year or so to when Ruth Davidson’s predecessor was asking questions, at question time after question time she told me that Scottish universities would never be adequately funded under the SNP’s proposed arrangements. It is now generally acknowledged, certainly by every principal in Scotland, that universities in Scotland are the best funded of any university institution in these islands. There has been fantastic investment in our university system. All the cries of doom and gloom and foreboding of disaster to come that the Conservative Party so disastrously deployed during the election campaign have come to naught.

Similarly, to answer this latest question, there is nothing new in the arrangements. There is no evidence of a serious difficulty affecting the universities. This Conservative scare story will dissolve just as surely as their scare stories about universities in Scotland not being properly funded did. The only semblance of truth in what Ruth Davidson says is that if the Conservative Party was ever allowed anywhere near government in Scotland, our universities would certainly suffer as the English universities are suffering at the moment.

If joint citizenship applications are old news—old news that was put out by the Government only this morning—why were they not identified in the consultation on the 2011 order? Confusion has been compounded by complacency.

It is not just the Conservatives who are asking these questions. Robin Parker, the National Union of Students Scotland president, who speaks for students, says that he is desperate for clarity and the president of the University and Colleges Union, Gordon Watson, has warned that a huge rise in such applications is likely next year. Scottish taxpayers already fund EU students at our universities to the tune of £75 million a year, but the continued incompetence of the education secretary could cost untold millions and see thousands of Scots unable to study in their own country.

Apparently, the introduction of rest of UK fees was supposed to stop Scottish students getting crowded out of Scottish universities but this shambles makes a mockery of that aim and blows apart the budgets of our universities, which have already set fees for people who now might not have to pay. Given that the education secretary is in denial, will the First Minister step in and sort this out?

Nothing in Ruth Davidson’s question will change the fact that the calamity that she imagines will happen has happened no more than the calamity that the Conservative Party forecast last year happened. The real calamities happening in Scotland are in, for example, the way in which the regimental traditions are being traduced by the Conservative Party. Despite commitments and promises made by her predecessors and previous Conservative Party leaders to maintain the regiments, not even the cap badges are being maintained. Let us talk about the Conservative disasters of today, instead of imagined problems, which this Government will deal with in the same way that it has dealt with every difficulty that the Conservative Party has presented us with.

The First Minister has indicated that he is aware of the potential implications of the UK Government’s defence review for our historic regiments. I draw his attention to the concern and anger felt by my constituents in Angus and shared throughout Dundee, Perthshire and Fife at the possibility that the local identity and proud traditions of the Black Watch will be lost either through regimental merger by its simply being renamed 3 SCOTS. Will the Scottish Government seek to make Westminster understand just how unacceptable these proposals are for Scotland?

Yes, we will—and, indeed, are. Bruce Crawford wrote to Phil Hammond, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 2 March and Andrew Robathan, the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, on 11 April to signal concern about the rumours of such a move, with the threat to historic regimental names, and to seek further clarity on the transformation process. Those ministers responded that it was too early to discuss these matters in detail but that Nick Harvey MP, the armed forces minister, would update Mr Crawford in due course. We still await further contact from Mr Harvey’s office.

It illustrates the arrogance that is being shown not only to this Government and Parliament but to elements of Scottish regimental tradition that this is being splashed all over the newspapers while we still await Nick Harvey’s letter, telling us what the exact plans are. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have not only understated and underestimated the huge element of sentiment that that golden thread of tradition has acquired but have revived the save the Scottish regiments campaign, whose press release today, which I have just received, points out:

“Since the news of the Tories’ disastrous plans for the Scottish Regiments, less than 48hrs ago, a Facebook group for the Save the ... Regiments Campaign has attracted nearly 1,500 members and continues to grow.”

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will find that they face the same opposition to their plans that the Labour Party faced some years ago.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00654)

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

The British Prime Minister has pledged his support for equal marriage. Yesterday, President Barack Obama, too, declared in favour of it. Will the First Minister guarantee that he will bring equal marriage to Scotland?

I made my personal views clear during the election campaign and have not changed my mind in that respect. However, we are in a consultation process. I believe that we have received 60,000 responses to that consultation—it might be more—and analysing them is taking some time. The responses will be published next month and the process will take its course in the proper and usual manner. I do not think that Willie Rennie helps matters by trying to stop that process following its proper pattern. Regardless of my views or his views, he must understand that equal marriage is an issue that excites substantial interest among large sections of the Scottish population. If we are to get a resolution of the issue—as I hope we do—that is entirely satisfactory and which is in keeping with Scottish tradition and the tradition of this Parliament, whatever else we do and whatever side of the debate we are on, we must treat the matter sensitively and properly.

If a British Prime Minister and a US President can proudly declare their support for equal marriage, surely the First Minister should not be so timid. This morning, his own MEP, Alyn Smith, has said:

“too many politicians are too equivocal”

on this. Why has the First Minister chosen to be one of the equivocal people who are criticised by his own side, instead of proudly joining the progressive world leaders in supporting equal marriage? If it is good enough for Obama, surely it is good enough for Salmond.

I gently point out that, whatever else Willie Rennie might think about David Cameron, his description of him as a “progressive world leader” sums up the difficulty of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland. I do not know whether Willie Rennie believes that David Cameron is a progressive world leader but, if he does, that certainly explains the departure of any semblance of a Liberal Democrat party from Scotland. If he thinks that he will get any help or support from the Conservative Party, he should have a look at Ruth Davidson’s press statement from earlier this week, in which she described the Liberal Democrats as defunct.

I have made my personal position on the issue perfectly clear but, as First Minister of Scotland, I have a responsibility to ensure that the debate is handled sensitively and correctly. We have had a huge number of responses to the consultation, and we will proceed in that manner so that everyone, regardless of their views, understands that the responses are being properly analysed and that the matter will be brought to a proper conclusion.

---

Health Behaviour (School-age Children)

4. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to address the findings of the recent World Health Organization survey, “Social determinants of health and well-being of young people: Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Study”. (S4F-00653)

It was a very encouraging report from the WHO. Young Scots are generally satisfied with life, they are smoking less and consuming less soft drinks, and they see themselves as performing well at school. We recognise that much more needs to be done, and we continue to work hard to ensure that Scotland is the best place in the world for young people to grow up in.

It is clear from the report that there is room for improvement, but it is also clear that Scotland is moving towards being a healthier society.

With the support of the Scottish National Party Government, the minority Dundee City Council administration took steps to improve the health of all Dundee’s residents. Work started on a £30 million swimming pool, £300,000 has been provided to upgrade the city’s velodrome, 20 primary school teachers have been funded to undertake postgraduate training in physical education and £170,000 has been earmarked to improve the city’s infrastructure to encourage people to walk and cycle more often.

Can we get to a question, please?

Does the First Minister agree that those may be some of the reasons why the people of Dundee elected a majority SNP administration last week?

Yes, I do. Not even the ranks of the Labour Party will want to claim the result in Dundee as a success for their party.

There was a bit of a different result in Renfrewshire. [Interruption.]

Can we get to the question?

Why has the Scottish Government failed to deliver on the 2007 manifesto commitment that children should receive two hours of quality physical education each week from specialist PE teachers?

I think that Neil Bibby should reflect on the fact that that was a refrain of the Labour Party in last year’s Scottish Parliament election, which was another election that it lost across Scotland.

We have made very substantive progress towards those targets. The present position represents a remarkable transformation from the situation that we inherited. On a range of matters—PE at school is certainly one of them—I advise the new Labour members who replaced the Labour members who got knocked oot last year, to have a look at what happened in 2007, the position that we inherited and the substantial improvements that have been made. I see one of the older Labour members waving his hands. The new members do not even have to look it up, because one of their older brethren can tell them about the disastrous position that we inherited and about the huge improvements that the Government has implemented in PE and nursery care and across a range of social provision.

---

Ryan Yates (Independent Report)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take in response to the independent report published following the Ryan Yates case in Aberdeen. (S4F-00664)

I am sure that all members will want to pay tribute to the courage and strength of character that were displayed by a grandmother who fought so bravely to protect her grandchildren from Ryan Yates. It was a despicable crime. Along with the police and other agencies, we will carefully consider the recommendations of the report. As Lewis Macdonald will know, Scotland has a robust system for managing sex offenders. The monitoring of such offenders is now tougher than ever before. However, if processes can be improved and strengthened further, the law enforcement agencies and the Scottish Government will take appropriate action following the report. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice will in early course update Parliament on the actions that are being taken specifically in response to the recommendations.

I echo the First Minister’s sentiments regarding the victims and the witnesses of that horrific attempted crime. Is he aware that the separate funding stream for intensive support and monitoring of the most serious offenders on release is now no longer available to councils that face exceptional costs, which can run to six-figure sums? Is he aware that such funding was not available to Aberdeen City Council in this case, simply because Ryan Yates had served his full sentence and was therefore not subject to any licence conditions on his release? Does the First Minister agree that those issues need to be addressed urgently to maximise public protection and ensure that such incidents never happen again?

I would not want to disguise the fact that that is part of the local government settlement. However, I am sure that Lewis Macdonald will be the first to say that, because of the introduction of the floor in local government settlements across Scotland—something that many members of his party resisted—Aberdeen has had a substantial improvement in its position. The Scottish Government and, I am sure, members across the chamber, will want to look extremely closely at the specific recommendations of the report. I hope that, when we bring forward whatever further improvements require to be implemented, they will enjoy cross-party support.

Recommendation 14 of the report is that there should be legislative change to allow retrospective applications for orders for lifelong restriction on prisoners. Does the First Minister intend to implement that recommendation and, if so, how will he reconcile that with human rights legislation?

The member has put her finger on one of the recommendations that are being carefully considered. She is right to point out that there are attractions in the recommendation in terms of public safety but there are also obstacles that would have to be overcome in the legislative process. That is exactly the sort of issue that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is considering. However, I would not want to give the impression that there are not other specific recommendations in the report that are capable of implementation. I would not want any legislative difficulties that might accompany that particular recommendation to disguise the fact that the bulk of the report brings forward valuable information. All of us will want to see as much as possible of that, to further strengthen and improve our systems.

---

Postage Increase (Economic Impact)

6. To ask the First Minister what impact the recent increase in the cost of postage will have on the Scottish economy. (S4F-00661)

It is a substantial increase at a time when small businesses are under pressure from ever-increasing costs and a continuing lack of access to lending from the banks. Far from us all being in this together, the United Kingdom Government, in agreeing to such a substantial increase, does not seem to have given much thought to the stresses on small business and the significant effect on the economics and finances of many small businesses.

The Royal Mail’s operating profit in the first half of the last financial year alone was £67 million. Does the First Minister agree that that level of profit indicates that the increase in the cost of postage was unnecessary and is part of the long-held Tory plans to undermine the Royal Mail and the Post Office as publicly owned institutions? Would this Parliament not do a better job of running Scotland’s postal services?

I am certain that, given the demonstrable effect of the changes that we have made in the areas of policy and legislation that we control, there is the strongest argument possible that that legislative competence should be extended. I would like it to be extended to everything, in an independent Scotland. However, I hope that Labour members will consider whether they believe that the universal postal service at reasonable cost is safer in the hands of a Tory Government in Westminster than it would be in the hands of this Parliament. I hope that Labour members will consider that point, not just as far as the Post Office is concerned but with regard to many other areas of Scottish life, because the substantive evidence is that, in areas where we have legislative competence, we make improvements in the real-life experience of people in Scotland. That has certainly been true of this Government. Incidentally, it has also been true of this Parliament since 1999. That is a substantive argument for extending the powers and authority of this Parliament and substantially diminishing the powers and authority of the Tory Government at Westminster.

12:30 Meeting suspended.

14:15 On resuming—