Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, September 17, 2015

Official Report 860KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02947)

Engagements to take forward the Government’s ambitious programme for Scotland.

Earlier this month, one of Scotland’s most successful businessmen looked the First Minister in the eye and told her to put the referendum behind her. Today, Sir Tom Hunter has repeated his message to Nicola Sturgeon. He said:

“it’s time to move on, move forward and use the powers we have.”

Does the First Minister think that Sir Tom Hunter is wrong?

I agree whole-heartedly with Sir Tom Hunter that we should use whatever powers we have in this Parliament at any time to full effect, and this Government will always do that. That was evident from the programme for government that I outlined two weeks ago. It is not inconsistent with also arguing for enhanced powers for this Parliament where we think that that is in the best interests of the Scottish people.

Let me give two examples from this very week where the argument for transferring powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament is overwhelming. The first is the Tory attack on trade union rights. It would be better for employment law to rest with this Parliament. The second is the Tory assault on the incomes of working people. It would be better for decisions on social security to be taken in this Parliament.

Maybe if Labour and their friends in the Conservatives had managed to persuade more than just 9 per cent of the Scottish population that their vow on more powers had been delivered, we would not be seeing support for independence increasing in the polls. There have been 24 polls in the past 12 months and every single one of them has shown support for independence higher than it was a year ago tomorrow. Maybe Kezia Dugdale would be better advised to ask herself why that is the case.

The First Minister says that she is determined to use the full powers of this Parliament. Most people in Scotland are waiting for her to start using any of those powers. The reality is—[Interruption.]

Order.

I do not expect the First Minister to change her principles, but I do expect her to change her priorities.

Tomorrow marks one year since the referendum. I know that, this week, the First Minister has talked about the material changes and the triggers that would be required for another referendum. She wants the Scottish National Party to get a second chance to ask that referendum question. Today, the question that I want to ask is about those kids who do not even get a first chance under her Government.

We know that kids from poorer backgrounds start primary school with language skills a whole year behind their better-off classmates. After eight years of this SNP Government, more than 6,000 children in Scotland today leave primary school unable to read properly. Can the First Minister tell us how many more kids we have to see without the basic skills they need before that triggers radical action?

When it comes to the judgment on the performance of this Government, I am quite happy to rely on the judgment of the Scottish people. I remind Kezia Dugdale that poll after poll after poll right now puts support for this Government in the low 50s and support for her party in the low 20s. [Interruption.]

Order.

I think that that says it all.

In terms of raising standards of literacy and numeracy in our education system, I could not have been clearer about the priority that I and this Government attach to that. That is why we have launched the read, write, count campaign and established the £100 million attainment fund, which is already channelling extra resources to more than 300 primary schools in the most deprived parts of the country.

When it comes to education, to health and to justice and getting crime levels down to a 41-year low, I will leave Labour to—to coin a phrase from Kezia Dugdale—carp from the sidelines. I will get on with delivering the action that the people of Scotland need and deserve.

The First Minister mentions the polls. Let us talk about them. She might be popular in them, but her record on education is not. Just one person in three in Scotland thinks that her record on education is up to scratch. If she is proud of that, that is great, but she should not expect any congratulations from me. She can turn and her back benchers will clap her, but just one person in three thinks that she has a good record when it comes to education.

Here is the thing. This is the First Minister who promised us not so long ago that the referendum was a once-in-a-generation event. She now has a shopping list of material changes that she thinks will justify another referendum. Instead of using the full force of government to make a difference to the lives of young Scots, the SNP wants us to go through the same arguments all over again.

Someone in Scotland today is twice as likely to get an A in their highers if they go to private school than if they go to a state school. A young person from a rich background is twice as likely to go on to higher education as someone from a poor background. The First Minister has had eight years, so when will she deliver a material change in the number of poorer children who are going to higher education?

Kezia Dugdale clearly could not decide whether she wanted to ask about education or independence. Maybe she should have followed the example of her new leader and asked the audience what she should ask about.

I will take Kezia Dugdale’s points in turn. She mentioned opinion polls. She will be familiar with the recent Ipsos MORI opinion poll that showed that, whether it is on health, education or justice, support for the policies of this Government is streets ahead of support for the policies of the Labour Party. I have answered the question on improving standards of literacy and numeracy—[Interruption.]

Order.

The Labour Party clearly does not want to hear about the action that we are taking to drive up standards in education.

More young people from our most deprived communities are going to university, but the amount is not high enough, which is why one of the first things that I did as First Minister was establish the widening access commission. We will get the interim report from that commission in the autumn, and we will start to deliver on its recommendations.

The division between the Government and the Opposition parties is this: they carp from the sidelines, they moan and they groan; this Government gets on with delivering for the people of this country.

That answer sounded like it had been emailed in by Alex from Strichen. [Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear Ms Dugdale.

I agree with the First Minister that Scotland has some of the most talented and ambitious young people in the world but, after eight years of an SNP Government, the odds remain stacked against thousands of children in Scotland. What will it take for her Government to close the gap between the richest and the rest in our schools? What will it take for Nicola Sturgeon to wake up to the fact that thousands of children in Scotland leave school unable to read properly? What will it take for the Scottish Government to put the arguments of the past aside and focus on the future of our young people? People in Scotland deserve to know. When will the First Minister stop campaigning for another referendum and start governing for a better Scotland?

After eight years of this Government, we have record numbers of higher and advanced higher passes. After eight years of this Government, we have record school leaver destinations. After eight years of this Government, the percentage of young people from our most deprived areas who are going to university is improving, but we are determined to do even better. I am proud of the record of this Government and will be proud to stand on it, but I am ambitious for this country and I will always seek to do the best for it.

If Kezia Dugdale does not raise her own performance, she will soon be going the same way as Jim from Eastwood.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To carry on a theme, Dave from Chipping Norton wants me to ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02946)

I always knew that Ruth Davidson took all her orders from Dave from Chipping Norton. Anyway, no plans in the near future to meet Dave.

The First Minister and I disagree fundamentally about the renewal of our nuclear deterrent on the Clyde. Although I may disagree with it, I respect her position. In recent days, however, her predecessor has raised the ridiculous prospect that Trident renewal could be a trigger for a second referendum on independence, despite the fact that last year a decisive majority voted to remain in the United Kingdom, with Trident on the Clyde as part of that, and despite polls in recent days showing that most Scots favour the retention of our nuclear deterrent.

We know that the First Minister will not give us any clarity on what her triggers for a future referendum are, but can she at least rule out that absurd proposal?

As I have already said, I will set out our position on a second referendum in our manifesto. I will consider the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to propose another referendum. However, I cannot understand why anybody would have any problem whatsoever with having the issue driven by democracy. If there is no evidence that people who voted—[Interruption.]

Order.

We are starting to see the problem that the Opposition parties have here.

If there is no evidence that people have changed their minds, of course it would not be right to have another referendum, but if there is evidence that people are changing their minds, or if there is a significant change in circumstances, it would be wrong for any one party or any one politician to rule out a referendum indefinitely.

The real question that Ruth Davidson should be addressing—a bit like Kezia Dugdale should be addressing it—is why, in every single one of the 24 polls that have been conducted in the past 12 months, support for independence is higher than it was on referendum day. We are starting to see quite clearly that the desperation of the better together parties to have a referendum ruled out indefinitely is not because they respect democracy but because, on this issue, they increasingly fear democracy.

I am not sure that that takes us any further forward at all. Before the referendum, the First Minister was able to say—she promised the people of Scotland this—that the referendum was going to be a once-in-a-generation event. Yet just this week, we are told that the triggers for a second referendum could be a defence policy that she does not like, an economic plan that she is opposed to, a devolution settlement that she disagrees with, or even a new leader of the Labour Party, which she does not think can win. In short, the trigger for another referendum seems to be any day of the week that has a y at the end of it. Is the truth not that the First Minister is just scratching around, trying to find any imaginable excuse to get the referendum rematch that the Scottish National Party so desperately wants?

I am not prepared to take any lectures from a party that has broken its vow to deliver extensive new powers for this Parliament. People should not just take—[Interruption.]

Order.

People should not just take my word for it. Only 9 per cent of people in this country think that the vow has been fully delivered. Even Gordon Brown, the great architect of the vow, thinks that it has not been delivered by the Tory Government. Maybe that is one of the reasons why support for independence is rising.

The contradiction is this. If the Tories, Labour and the Liberals really believed in their heart of hearts that the people of Scotland were totally against independence, they would be crying out for another referendum. People know that the reason why those parties want us to save them from rising support for independence is that they fear the verdict of the Scottish people. I will put my faith in the judgment of the Scottish people. It is about time the other parties started doing that as well.

Does the First Minister appreciate the anger of people in my constituency about the obscene pay-outs to senior management at the former Coatbridge College? The Auditor General for Scotland told the Public Audit Committee that that failure of governance was

“among the most serious that I have seen during my time as Auditor General.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 9 September 2015; c 11.]

What can the First Minister do about the situation? How can her Government ensure that it cannot happen again?

I am appalled at the way in which the college made decisions involving hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money. Those events took place before the colleges were reclassified by the Office for National Statistics and stronger national controls came into effect. Nonetheless, at the time Coatbridge College was required to comply with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council’s guidance and did not do so.

The rules have changed. Since April last year, colleges must seek prior approval from the SFC for severance and settlement arrangements. There are also now enhanced ministerial powers to intervene in such circumstances.

I know that the Public Audit Committee wants to explore the issue further. The convener is prepared to exercise powers under the Scotland Act 1998 to compel any reluctant witnesses to co-operate, which I think is entirely appropriate. As a Government, we will also consider whether more can be done in the future to avoid such situations happening again.

---

Fracking and Unconventional Gas Extraction

To ask the First Minister whether the timetable for the conclusion of the evidence-gathering process and public consultation regarding the moratorium on fracking and unconventional gas extraction will be published before the October recess. (S4F-02949)

Ministers have already held meetings with representatives of environmental non-governmental organisations, community groups, industry bodies and local government. Those meetings have helped us to prepare for the research and public consultation processes. As a result, we have a robust and thorough research process planned and have agreed to have a wide-ranging and participative consultation process. I confirm that the full timetable and the research process are being finalised and will be published before the October recess.

Everybody wants to know how long the Scottish National Party’s moratorium will last. Fracking has been on the Parliament’s agenda since 2011. Do the public not deserve certainty? Do they not have a right to know exactly what the Scottish Government’s view is? Will the First Minister’s Government come to a decision on fracking before next year’s elections so that local communities have the opportunity to influence the decision? Will she sign up to Scottish Labour’s triple lock, properly assessing health, environmental and climate risks, learning from experience in the rest of the United Kingdom, and, crucially, signing up to community votes on proposals?

As I said, the full timetable for the process will be published before the October recess, and the Parliament will be able to scrutinise it at that time.

On the question that Sarah Boyack started off by asking me, the moratorium will last for as long as it takes for the Government to have all the information—health information, environmental information and information from the public consultation—to allow us to take a decision. We are determined to lead a precautionary, careful, cautious and evidence-based approach to the matter. That is what the people of Scotland want, and it is what the Government will continue to do.

I am looking at a list of parliamentary questions on the topic from Green members and others across the political spectrum. I am sure that the First Minister does not want me to read them all out, as there are more than a dozen of them. A few have been given holding answers or similar, but most have remained unanswered for six or seven months. Do the Parliament and, indeed, the public not deserve clarity on the question, particularly as we enter the run-up to the election next year? Do the public not have a right to know what the SNP intends to do—whether it is yes or no—about the issue?

I thought that Patrick Harvie would have welcomed the clarity of a moratorium. There will be no fracking in Scotland until the Government and the Parliament are in receipt of all the relevant and necessary information to take an evidence-based decision. That is an entirely appropriate way to proceed on the matter. I do not know whether he agrees with his predecessor as co-convener of the Greens, Robin Harper, who says that there are some circumstances in which fracking should go ahead. We are not prepared to say that at this stage because we need to have all the information on which to make an evidence-based judgment.

The Scottish Government’s own expert scientific panel on unconventional gas extraction reported in July last year and stated its view that fracking could be conducted safely in Scotland if properly regulated. We know that the Scottish Government ignores scientific advice on genetically modified crops and that the position of the chief scientific adviser has been vacant since last year, but is it not time that the First Minister started listening to our scientists on fracking?

I know that Murdo Fraser is gung-ho when it comes to fracking but, in a sense, he helps to illustrate the reason for the sensible approach that the Government is taking. I have just had a question from somebody who wants me to rule it out straight away and now I have a question from Murdo Fraser, who wants me to rule it in straight away. Neither approach would be justified, because we do not yet have the environmental, health and public consultation information on which to base a reasonable, precautionary, sensible judgment.

We will continue to take the sensible way forward on the matter. We will reach a view, and the Parliament will have full input into that, when we have the evidence on which to base it.

---

Trade Union Bill

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the United Kingdom Government’s Trade Union Bill and its potential impact on employment in Scotland. (S4F-02955)

The Government strongly opposes the Trade Union Bill. It is a draconian piece of legislation and will undermine good industrial relations. It will also make it more difficult for employees to have their voices heard. The measures proposed are an ideologically driven attack on the rights of workers. We see no justification for such an excessive erosion of the rights of trade unions to fairly and reasonably represent their members.

The bill has the potential to destabilise the progressive approach that we are taking in Scotland. We have written to the United Kingdom Government to highlight our opposition to the bill, and we will do everything in our power to minimise any impact that it might have when it has been passed.

I welcome the First Minister’s commitment to fight all the way on the bill. Will the Scottish Government seek an exemption for the Scottish public sector in relation to the UK Government’s plans to end the current arrangements for check-off and facility time?

Yes, we will. While the bill is progressing through the House of Commons we will take every opportunity to oppose it, at every stage, but we will also explicitly seek exemptions on the arrangements for check-off and facility time. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training will raise the matter at the meeting that she has coming up with the UK skills minister. We will continue to do everything that we can to oppose the plans in the strongest possible way.

I make one final point. I want to be in a position in this Parliament of being able to do more on these vital issues than just opposing Tory proposals. I would like us in this Parliament to be in a position of having control over trade union and employment legislation, so that we could take a completely different approach. I hope that one of the first actions of the new Labour leader will be to reverse Labour’s opposition to the devolution of legislation over employment and trade union rights.

Labour councils, led by Glasgow City Council, West Lothian Council, Falkirk Council and Fife Council, will not co-operate with check-off and facility time provisions if the Trade Union Bill passes. Will the First Minister give a cast-iron commitment that her Government will do exactly the same?

I answered a question on that at a public meeting in Coatbridge the other night. There will be no co-operation from this Government in imposing draconian trade union legislation—[Interruption.]

Order.

Let us get real here. If we cannot stop a Tory Government passing this legislation, the real answer is to get the powers out of the hands of the Tories and into the hands of this Government.

I will happily agree with Neil Findlay on this issue; I just wish that he would agree with me that it would be far better to decide these things in this Parliament.

---

Scottish Fiscal Commission

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will bring forward revised proposals for greater independence of the Scottish Fiscal Commission following the recent consultation. (S4F-02948)

As I confirmed in the programme for government, the Scottish Government will bring forward a Scottish Fiscal Commission bill in the current parliamentary year. The Government recognises that it is critical to the effectiveness and credibility of the Scottish Fiscal Commission that it is both structurally and operationally independent of Government and that it is seen to be so. We will ensure that the bill that is introduced in the Parliament includes robust measures to protect the commission’s independence.

The First Minister will be aware, of course, that major new financial powers are coming to this Parliament, so it is increasingly important that there is independent and transparent scrutiny of the nation’s finances. All respondents to the Government’s consultation on its proposed Fiscal Commission raised concerns about the lack of independence, pointing out that we cannot have a commission that both advises and scrutinises Government.

Will the First Minister put party interests to one side and take action over something over which she has power? Will she adopt the high standards that the International Monetary Fund set out, to guarantee the independence of the Scottish Fiscal Commission?

The very highest standards will be guaranteed in the bill. The Fiscal Commission will be structurally, operationally and visibly independent of Government, and that is what people have a right to expect.

The responsibility for preparing the tax forecasts that underpin our budget decisions rightly rests with ministers, because we are accountable to this Parliament. The detailed account of the forecasting approach that we take will be published, the Fiscal Commission’s independent evaluation of that report will be published, and any changes that the Government makes in response to the Fiscal Commission’s evaluation will also be published, for total and complete transparency.

Jackie Baillie and other members should remember that the Fiscal Commission has the right—right now, and it will continue to have it when it is on a statutory footing—to disagree with the Government’s forecasts. Indeed, in the draft budget process for this year, the Fiscal Commission said that the forecasts on non-domestic rates revenue were “optimistic” and the Deputy First Minister revised those forecasts down as a result.

The Fiscal Commission will be demonstrably independent, and I hope that every member of the Parliament will welcome that.

After taking much evidence, the entire Finance Committee concluded that the Scottish Fiscal Commission should carry out its own forecasts. What is the First Minister’s personal view on that issue?

If Gavin Brown had listened to my previous answer, he would have heard me talk not only about the importance of responsibility for forecasting resting with ministers, who are accountable to Parliament, but about the transparency of the process around that.

The bill will be introduced and Parliament will have the full opportunity to scrutinise it—it will go through the normal committee process. As with any bill, members will be able to lodge amendments at committee stage 2 and in the plenary session of the Parliament at stage 3. I am confident that the bill that will emerge will put the Fiscal Commission on a statutory footing, secure its operational and structural independence, and make it clear for all to see that the commission is independent of Government.

Will the First Minister ensure that the commission has a full and uninhibited role in assessing the fiscal framework if and when that is put in place?

The Fiscal Commission will have an independent role in scrutinising and evaluating the approach that the Scottish Government takes to forecasting and the financial matters that fall within its remit. We seek—I hope that we will have the support of Tavish Scott and every other member for this—to ensure that the fiscal framework that accompanies the Scotland Bill is fair to this Parliament. Anything less than that would be unacceptable.

---

United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015

To ask the First Minister what involvement the Scottish Government will have in the UN sustainable development summit 2015. (S4F-02957)

Unfortunately, the Scottish Government will have no direct involvement in the UN summit on 25 to 27 September, at which the sustainable development goals will be formally agreed. The Scottish Government’s request to travel to the UN with the United Kingdom delegation was declined by the Secretary of State for International Development.

I thank the First Minister for that dismal answer—[Laughter.]

Order. Let us hear Mr Gibson.

—from the point of view of Scotland. The ban, which has been ordered by Westminster, will prevent the Scottish Government from exercising our duty to pursue the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is incorporated in the Scotland Act 1998, and it bars our ministers from taking part in the New York agenda concerning such topics as inequalities, land reform and climate change. It is, therefore, bad for Scotland, and our basic and urgent needs cannot be met in those international talks with our input.

The UK Government’s refusal to allow Scottish ministers to participate in the summit is disappointing not only for the Government but for people across Scotland who attach great significance to the matters that will be under discussion. Bobby Anderson, the chair of the Scottish Malawi Foundation, has described the decision as

“politically-driven and small-minded”.

Not attending the summit inhibits our ability not only to share Scotland’s experience on those matters but to learn from other international practice and experience, and it deprives the UK Government of our support on and contribution to the matters that will be discussed. I am disappointed about the decision, which does not augur well for such decisions in the future. Nevertheless, I assure the chamber that the decision will in no way diminish this Government’s commitment to take forward the new sustainable development goals.