Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, November 10, 2011

Official Report 1100KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00255)

I am delighted to announce to the chamber that, earlier today, a memorandum of understanding was agreed between Forth Ports plc, Scottish Enterprise and the City of Edinburgh Council. That agreement will unlock the vast potential of Leith port and will ensure that it will be transformed with the ability to serve a range of industries, thereby creating new jobs and economic growth both for Edinburgh and for Scotland.

This week, the latest report by European experts Arabella Thorp and Gavin Thompson makes clear the cost to taxpayers of the requirement for a separate Scotland to join the euro. Our contribution to the bail-out fund would currently be around £8 billion. Is that a bill that the First Minister is happy to see Scotland pay?

I doubt that Iain Gray has properly read the report from the House of Commons library researchers, because it goes through a range of options. The idea that Scotland would be dragooned into the euro is totally wrong and completely without foundation. Scotland’s position will be the same as that of the rest of the United Kingdom as we become an independent country; we will have exactly the same rights and obligations. The idea that Scotland will be treated differently—as some sort of region—is shared only by those who do not understand the important and valid point that Scotland is not only a nation, but a European nation.

I have read the report. The First Minister needs to understand that he is not the only politician who can read. However, I wonder how much he has read, because he simply asserts that we would not have to join the euro.

Let us see how the evidence is stacking up. Those who disagree with him include Thorp and Thompson; Professor Jo Murkens of the London School of Economics and Political Science; Professor Robert Hazell of University College London; the First Minister’s own economic adviser, Professor Hughes-Hallett; the European Commission’s President Barroso, who says that there will be no more euro opt-outs; and the Maastricht treaty—I wonder whether the First Minister has ever read that.

On the First Minister’s side, who do we have? The ever-trustworthy First Minister’s spokesperson, who was this week reduced to misquoting the late Robin Cook. If the First Minister has crystal-clear legal advice on the question, will he publish it?

I refer Iain Gray to paragraph 2.3 of the Scottish ministerial code concerning legal advice, its assistance and its publication. Perhaps I can help him by citing some authorities. Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the only Scottish judge to have been President of the European Court of Justice, was asked to address the point about Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of independence. He said:

“Independence would leave Scotland and something called ‘the rest’ in the same legal boat. If Scotland had to reapply, so would the rest. I am puzzled at the suggestion that there would be a difference in the status of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of Community law if the Act of Union was dissolved.”

I think that we can reasonably say that the late Lord Mackenzie-Stuart was an authority on such matters, but I have no knowledge that he was ever friendly towards the SNP’s position. However, he looked at precisely that question and his argument was very clear from that quotation. Incidentally, “I am puzzled” is legal speak for “I don’t understand the argument that’s being put forward.” The point that he put forward very clearly is that Scotland and the rest of the UK would be in exactly the same legal position.

I will turn to what that legal position might be. I will quote Eamonn Gallagher, who is a former director-general of the European Commission and ambassador to the United Nations in New York. He said:

“Scotland and the rest of the UK would be equally entitled to continue the existing full membership of the EU.”

I am quite happy to quote to Iain Gray a range of other authorities. I hope that he accepts that they are important legal authorities whose views have been published. I hope that he has read them and that he will now abandon his attempt to suggest that Scotland, with its enormous natural resources, its dominant position in the European Union’s oil and gas resources and its great renewables resources, would somehow not be wanted by the rest of the European Union.

I read Mackenzie-Stuart and Gallagher this morning. The point is that they do not precisely address the question that I am putting to the First Minister. They both say, one on the evidence of the other, that Scotland would continue to be a member of European Union. What does the First Minister say to all the experts who accept that point but say that, as a member of the European Union, Scotland would have to join the euro? It might be that the interpretation is that the rest of the UK would be in the same position.

Members: Oh!

Let the member finish his question, please.

I love it when they think they have discovered something.

What would Scotland’s position be? All those experts say that we would have to be in the euro and that it would cost £8 billion.

As for the legal advice, everyone knows that if Alex Salmond had legal advice that agreed with him on the point, he would have found a way to get it out. Fiona Hyslop says that letting Scotland know whether his policy will cost Scotland £8 billion would be contrary to the public interest. I do not think so. Does not she really mean that it would be contrary to the SNP’s interests, so they are going to keep it secret?

We are making progress; Iain Gray has read—this morning—the legal advice of some of the most credible people to have addressed the question. Let me give him a quotation from another credible person. The first and longest-serving secretary general of the European Commission, Emile Noël, said that Scottish

“independence would create two new member states out of one. They would have equal status with each other and the other states. The remainder of the United Kingdom would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland.”

So we come to Iain Gray’s dramatic admission before the members in the chamber that it might well be that the rest of the UK would have to join the euro. Now we understand the entrenched opposition of the unionist parties to Scottish independence. It is not about Scotland: they are worried that England and the rest would be forced into membership of the euro. As successor states, both parts would inherit rights and obligations, including the opt-out that was negotiated by the UK.

I offer Iain Gray a further point of reassurance. Sweden—a new member—is not in the euro. Why is that? It is because the people of Sweden said that they did not want to join it, and the European Commission accepted that. Let us sweep away all the scaremongering and accept that Scotland is a European nation, and that right across Europe, people will be anxious to see Scotland have the same rights and obligations as other European Union members.

In the face of expert opinion that says that an independent Scotland would have to be in the euro, the First Minister continues to assert on no evidence that that is not the case.

Where is your evidence?

Where is my evidence? I read out a list of expert evidence and opinion when I asked the question. That is where my evidence is.

The First Minister has a mandate to ask Scots whether they want separation, but he has no mandate to mislead them. He must give us all the facts before we decide. The experts say that a separate Scotland would have to join the euro and that it would cost at least £8 billion. On such an important question, does Alex Salmond really think that he can just stick his fingers in his ears and his head in the sand?

I think that that was a shimmy away from the dramatic admission that was made in the previous question. I have cited authorities—a former director general of the European Commission, the longest-serving secretary general of the European Commission and the only Scottish judge who chaired the European Court of Justice—but Iain Gray does not want to talk about them. So let us talk about the reality.

As successor states, Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom would inherit the opt-out that was negotiated by the UK Government. Even if that were not the case, we would be in the same position as Sweden—and Sweden has not joined the euro because the people of Sweden did not want to join the euro. Olli Rehn, the European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, says that membership of the euro is for the Swedish people to decide.

I have been in politics a fair time. I remember when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—a Labour Prime Minister—said that he wanted to have the courage of his convictions and join the euro. Most of us now say that we would not do that until it was in the economic interests of the country to do so. That would be decided by the people of Scotland in a referendum. We would have the same rights and the same obligations as the rest of the United Kingdom and every other European Union member. That is the reality.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00251)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future, although I know that Ruth Davidson met him in the very recent past. I congratulate her on her birthday and on her success in becoming leader of her party, although I will say that her hobby of kick boxing seems to have become endemic, in a political sense, among her colleagues over the past couple of days.

I thank the First Minister for his birthday wishes. There are not many people who get the boost of the front page of The Scotsman on their birthday.

I was reading a Scottish National Party press release today that quoted Liz Lochhead, the Scots makar, as saying:

“if there was a referendum tomorrow, I’d vote yes”.

Let me ask the First Minister this: if a straightforward yes or no referendum were to be held tomorrow, is he confident that he would win?

Yes, and I would vote “yes”.

I guess that the question is, in that case, why does the First Minister not invite people to answer in a yes or no referendum tomorrow? We know the answer to that from the exchange that we have just heard; we know that the First Minister is feart. He is feart to publish the legal advice on an independent Scotland joining Europe. We know that he is feart to even ask Europe for its advice. He is feart to name the question for a referendum and we know that he is feart to name the day. No wonder.

The First Minister is such a fan of polls that I shall mention a couple to him. At the weekend, we saw a BBC poll in which barely a quarter of people backed independence. A poll that is running currently on www.scotsman.com has attracted more than 35,000 votes and shows that by nearly three to one Scotland wants a simple and straightforward yes or no question. Liz Lochhead wants a poll tomorrow and Scotland wants a single, simple yes or no question. Why does the First Minister not just get on with it?

I was interested in the poll at the weekend, and in Ruth Davidson’s appearance on “The Politics Show”, when it was quite clearly explained to her that the question that she was citing in favour of the Scotland Bill was actually about devolution max, so the support that she was claiming for the Scotland Bill was not that. I have the quotation from Isabel Fraser when she pointed out the relevant sections. I was therefore very surprised to hear Ruth Davidson repeat on “Good Morning Scotland” on Tuesday what she said.

I will tell Ruth Davidson what we will do: we will stick to what we said in the election campaign and we will have the referendum on Scottish independence—there will be a straight yes or no question—in the second half of this parliamentary session. We will do that because that is what we said in the election campaign. I think that she will accept that that gained us a pretty overwhelming result in the verdict of the people of Scotland. Just as the people of Scotland showed faith in the Scottish National Party, the SNP Government shows faith in the people of Scotland.

I have a large number of members wanting to ask constituency and topical questions.

The First Minister will be aware of the double blow in my constituency this week. On Monday, the window manufacturer A C Yule and Son Ltd called in the administrators and made redundant 50 staff in Aberdeen and about 150 more throughout Scotland and the north of England. On Tuesday, the Argus Care group, which is based in my constituency and operates 12 nursing and residential homes throughout Scotland, appointed administrators. Can the First Minister assure me that a partnership action for continuing employment team is already in place to assist the redundant workers, and that the health and wellbeing directorate is fully involved with Aberdeen City Council and others to ensure minimum disruption to the care of the frail elderly people who are affected?

Yes, I can. Maureen Watt raises two really important constituency issues that are obviously of wider importance to Scotland as a whole.

I confirm that those who face redundancy due to the administration of A C Yule have been provided with information about PACE services. The Skills Development Scotland centre in Aberdeen is already providing tailored help and support for those who are affected.

Progress is being made on the second matter. The Scottish Government is working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other partners, such as the Association of Directors of Social Work and Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland, to ensure continuity of care for all residents in the 12 Argus Care homes in Scotland. I am pleased to say that the expectation is that all the staff who currently deliver those vital services will remain in place.

The First Minister will be aware of the sudden departure of Philip Preston from his post as managing director of CalMac Ferries Ltd. Staff have been informed that he is leaving as part of a company refocus. What is the nature of that refocus? Will the First Minister confirm that CalMac will remain as an entity and that his Government will continue to tender all the routes together? Will he guarantee that the refocus will not have a negative impact on service users, and that any changes will be subject to full consultation?

That is always the case, and I can indicate that it will be the case.

Personal matters are always difficult to touch on. John Swinney will send the member a letter that gives as much information as we can give. I can say that CalMac will continue to provide the key valuable and vital lifeline services for the island communities of Scotland.

As we approach remembrance Sunday, will the First Minister join me in condemning the recent acts of disrespect at the Gordon Highlanders statue in Aberdeen and the commando memorial in Spean Bridge? Given the close links between those and other historic Scottish regiments and their local communities, does the First Minister agree that everyone should be aware of troops’ sacrifices past and present, and that they should give them the respect and honour that they deserve?

I know that all members will unreservedly condemn wanton acts of theft or vandalism to war memorials. There are thousands of memorials in communities throughout Scotland that mark the sacrifice of our servicemen and servicewomen. Those memorials are an integral part of the fabric of our communities and they should be respected at all times. It is vital that young people in particular fully understand and appreciate the sacrifices that have been made by our armed forces. The Scottish veterans fund has provided a range of support to the Lady Haig Poppy Factory, Poppyscotland, the Royal British Legion Scotland and the Gordon Highlanders museum so that those sacrifices and their meaning can be fully explained and articulated, and can be appreciated by everyone in our communities.

I want to raise an issue as MSP for Glasgow Pollok.

Excellent housing associations and housing co-operatives serve my community. I am dismayed at the decision of the First Minister’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth to cut £112 million out of Glasgow’s housing development budget in the next three years. That is a catastrophic decision that will have a huge impact on the ability to create housing and a massive impact on the local economy because of the lack of jobs in construction. I urge the First Minister to tackle the issue urgently. It is essential that we have a housing policy that meets the needs of, and affords economic opportunities to, the people of Glasgow. The decision flies in the face of the needs of Glasgow, and I urge the First Minister to change it as soon as possible.

The position is not as Johann Lamont presents it, but I am perfectly happy to ensure that she has the facts at her disposal.

Two things are pretty clear. First, the Government’s record in social housing is exemplary compared with what went before, and in view of the finances that are available to us.

Secondly, we are mobilising tens—indeed, hundreds—of millions of pounds of investment in Scottish housing throughout the country by a variety of new mechanisms that are urgently and desperately required. I gently point out to Johann Lamont that the gentleman who is sitting on her left—Iain Gray—once said that the Labour Party passed the best housing legislation in the world and then forgot to build the houses. We have not forgotten to build the houses.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00254)

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

Last month, I asked the First Minister whether he would use part of the £67 million additional funding that his Government has been allocated to stop the £40 million cut to Scotland’s colleges. He was not able to answer then. Is he any closer to making a decision?

The specifications of the consequentials will follow shortly.

In the past couple of weeks, I have had the great pleasure of opening the new Dundee College campus and the new Forth Valley College campus. I am sure that Willie Rennie will be interested to note that the capital expenditure that is moving through the college sector at the moment is approximately five times what it was when the party that he supports was in alliance with the Labour Party. He should take that expenditure, which continues in Glasgow, Inverness and Kilmarnock, into the equation when he speaks about the college sector.

The issue is urgent. The First Minister has £67 million that he did not expect. Scotland’s colleges are doing great work helping people to get up and get on in the world, but Angus College predicts that it will lose 400 full-time places, Borders College could lose seven full-time courses and principals say that they cannot guarantee quality or student numbers.

The First Minister could take a positive step today and unite the Parliament for the good of Scotland and announce that he will use the extra money to protect colleges. It makes no sense to continue to delay that decision. Why is he not able to give certainty right now? Does he not understand that it is urgent?

As the college principals have noted, we are in constructive debate about how best to help the colleges. I hope that Willie Rennie will take a look at capital expenditure throughout Scotland, because the college sector has been a dramatic and, incidentally, rightful beneficiary.

The consequentials will be announced. I know that the matter is difficult for Willie Rennie because the alliance with the Tory party is uncomfortable for many Liberal Democrats, although perhaps not for him. He says that we have £67 million that we did not expect. Yes we do—and our budget is down by £3 billion as a result of the activities of the Conservative-Liberal coalition at Westminster.

---

First Ministerial Visits (Qatar and United Arab Emirates)

4. To ask the First Minister what the outcome was of his trip to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. (S4F-00257)

The visit was highly successful that strengthened Scotland’s economic and energy links with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. In my meetings with both Governments, it was clear that not only is Scotland regarded as a world leader in the energy sector in oil and gas, but it has great opportunities for viable long-term investment in the renewables sector. In particular, I was also delighted to meet TAQA—or the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company—which is committed to a further £600 million of investment in its North Sea assets.

I know that the whole Parliament recognises the importance of those economic contacts to advertising Scotland’s great energy wealth across a range of sectors and to mobilising the investment worldwide to develop those resources on behalf of the people of Scotland.

I have a considerable interest in developments in the North Sea and welcome that investment. Will the First Minister tell me anything more about discussions that he had about development of renewable energy across the globe?

The Masdar Institute of Science and Technology in Abu Dhabi has announced its intention to enter into a framework for action with Scotland. The framework is intended to result in a concrete set of actions to take forward investment in renewables and to share expertise. It will be the first-ever agreement between the institute and a country—its previous agreements have been with some of the great energy companies of the world—and, if we are successful in securing the agreement, it will demonstrate that Scotland is leading the way in all aspects of the energy sector, including the renewables revolution.

What human rights groups did the First Minister meet in Qatar?

I saw some stuff about Qatar, which I admit was not from the Labour Party and for which I know the Liberal Democrats have apologised. I point out that Qatar has not had a political prisoner for 10 years. It is the enabler of the Arab spring and the home of Al Jazeera. I am sure that Jenny Marra would not wish to create any impression that Qatar is other than very admirable on a range of policies that it has pursued of late. I know that Scotland and the Parliament would in no way want to insult the people of Qatar.

---

Junior Doctors (Working Hours)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the General Medical Council survey suggesting that junior doctors feel pressured to work more than a 48-hour week. (S4F-00258)

That would breach the European working time directive.

I take the issue seriously. Any suggestion that junior doctors feel pressured to work more than a 48-hour week on average is totally unacceptable. The GMC survey shows that the vast majority of trainees do not feel under pressure to pretend that they have worked compliant rotas, and it demonstrates a reduction in recent years which, I am sure, Duncan McNeil would be the first to recognise.

Through its national monitoring team, the Scottish Government will continue to work closely with NHS Scotland boards to ensure that the hours that junior doctors work comply with all contractual and legislative requirements.

Against a backdrop of delays in replacing staff, a drive to reduce expenditure on temporary staff and locums, and uncertainty about future employment for junior doctors at the end of their training, is it any surprise that junior doctors feel that they must break the law and lie to meet the demands of the job? Does the First Minister share my concern about the consequences that that might have for patients and junior doctors, as in the tragic case of Lauren Connelly, who served at Inverclyde royal hospital?

I will answer the second question in the proper way, as it raises a constituency matter.

I wonder whether Duncan McNeil has read the GMC survey, which shows that the vast majority of junior doctors reported having rotas that complied with the working time directive. The survey asked whether people felt under pressure, to which 10 per cent of respondents replied that they did. That figure is far too high, but the percentage is declining and is small, and the survey is confidential. Please do not give the impression that this serious issue is not being tackled, because it is being tackled as regulations are introduced, and do not give the impression that we know from the survey that the practice is widespread, because it is not.

As for Duncan McNeil’s second question, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is undertaking an internal investigation, and a police investigation into the road traffic accident is taking place. Given the on-going investigations, we should not comment further at this stage, other than to extend the Parliament’s sympathy to Dr Connelly’s family.

The NHS had about 12 years to prepare for full implementation of the European working time directive. I support calls to protect junior doctors from pressure to underreport their working hours.

The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians have expressed concern about the time that is available for training. What measures are being taken to maximise training opportunities for junior doctors?

A range of measures ensures compliance with the working time directive. I regard the issue as being hugely serious as, I am sure, the whole Parliament does. I do not want to turn it into political banter. I could quote to Alison McInnes where the figures were just a few years ago and where they are now. I am sure that she would accept that compliance has improved dramatically.

However, that is not enough. We want to ensure that no junior doctors feel pressured not to comply with the working time directive, and that the directive is universally enforced. From the statistics both from the confidential survey and the monitoring, there is no doubt that this very serious problem is at last being seriously tackled.

---

Public Health Levy

6. To ask the First Minister what impact the proposed public health levy will have on employment in the retail sector. (S4F-00245)

The public health supplement will raise an additional £30 million in 2012-13 from large retailers of tobacco and off-sales of alcohol, which will sustain and support preventative spend. The figure is insignificant when we consider that the cost to Scottish business of the Tory Government’s VAT rise will be over £1,000 million.

I am sure that Gavin Brown will be aware that Scotland has the most competitive system of business rate taxation available anywhere in the United Kingdom and we will continue to do so for the lifetime of this Parliament.

What a lame answer. Even the Scottish National Party back benchers forgot to clap at that one.

Let me ask a specific question. I asked what the impact on employment would be. This Government is able to tell us how many jobs are being created any time it makes any announcement, so can the First Minister tell us how many retail jobs will be lost in Scotland by taking £110 million out of the sector?

I have to correct Gavin Brown’s interpretation of the reply. I was merely saying that if he believes that a £30 million health levy in order to fund the key programmes that we require as a country to tackle serious issues is a devastating blow to the major retailers, can he please tell us why he does not think that a cost of £1 billion—that is, £1,000 million—that will be imposed by the VAT rise of the Tory Government is not a huge issue?

Given that Gavin Brown seems to be the only member of the Conservative Party who was not offered the job of deputy leader—I am sure that that is not due to lack of ambition—I think that he should come forward with stronger questions if he wants to rise further.

12:31 Meeting suspended.

14:15 On resuming—