16/06/2011 Politics Scotland

A very warm welcome from the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood.

Questions for the First Minister today. They can ask pretty much

anything they like. Today, the main topic will come at least from one

of the opposition leaders. It will be the row between First Minister

and the leader of the UK Supreme Court. -- Supreme Court. Let's see

if that comes up. They are a keen bunch today. Let's listen end.

attack by the First Minister on one of Scotland's most senior judges.

The political editor of the Times said, the First Minister has

finally lost the plot. Well, has he? No. That was a mild comment

following on from the comments by the First Minister in his Holyrood

interview. The First Minister is in danger of losing the plot and any

argument he might actually have by prosecuting it in this way. The

former Deputy Leader of the SNP called the remarks undignified,

foolish and juvenile, this morning. In those remarks, the First

Minister said, at least I went to the bother of getting elected. That

is true. These crass, personal attacks demean the office to which

he was elected. Will he retract them? I conducted an interview two

weeks ago when we were engaged in the vigorous debate on these

matters. Since then I have appointed under Lord McCluskey, a

panel of people of eminence and expertise, to advise this

Parliament and have their fees debated by Parliament so we can

address the underlying issue. I think that is the way to do this. I

look forward to the McCluskey report. I was interested. When Ian

asked the first question, it did strike there was something about

the losing the plot business. By happen chance, I had no prior

knowledge of that question, I came across this quote from the Guardian

on 15th May, 2003. David Blunkett sparked with the judges over the

sentencing powers let to new depths yesterday. He was accused of losing

the plot. We all have the right of fair comment. I am interested that

the memory of Iain Gray of his colleagues in London and the

ramifications of is not as perfect. My view that these remarks were

inappropriate is not one I hold a loan. I think we have seen comments

that these statements were crude, ignorant, embarrassing. That is not

my judgment, it is the judgment of commentators and the legal

establishment. It is no answer to say, if you are the First Minister

of Scotland, this is something I said two weeks ago when I was in a

bad mood. The truth is, this has spiralled out of control. It

started with the new constitutional grandstanding and led to gratuitous

attacks on judges, courts, glorious and even newspapers who dared to

question the First Minister. It has brought us to an extraordinary

joint statement from the Faculty of advocates and the Law Society who

describe it as a challenge, not only to the courts, but to the rule

of law. I understand that the First Minister is now taking the advice

of the Scotsman editor to calm down, Alex, dear. He has to also grow up,

own up and apologise so that this debate can move on and be conducted

in the way it should have been from the word go. Will he apologise?

I will go forward as I think this Parliament should go forward on the

basis of looking at Lord McCluskey and his panel's expect fees. I

think there has been a general welcome for that approach. Let this

Parliament debate them and get to the underlying issue. There is a

range of figures. Can I cite some figures who have spoken out saying

there is a real issue of concern that has to be a -- address. Paul

McBride QC, Ian Smart, former President of the Law Society of

Scotland and the founding of Scottish Labour Action at one time.

Lord Fraser said Alex Salmond is spot on. The former Lord Advocate,

a view of evolution issues. -- devolution issues. The interaction

of the judiciary and parliamentary comment is a joke. The independence

of the judiciary is guaranteed. We pass legislation in 2008. It is not

just about free speech. It is something everyone in this debate

should have, including Lord Hope who exercise it. Everyone should

have the right of free speech. Just as I make no complaint over the

bite of anyone to exercise the right of free speech was that when

you are First Minister of Scotland or an opposition leader, you have

to address matters of key public concern. I think it is a real issue.

The criminal law of Scotland is a matter of public concern. It was

never meant to be second-guessed. I think so real public issue of

compensation payments paid to criminals in Scotland, in a

liability that does not exist in any other jurisdiction, these are

real points of public concern. As well as the right of free speech,

we have a duty, as parliamentarians, to articulate the public concerns

Presiding Officer, the First Minister cites some important

principles which underpin our democracy. The problem is, his

public statements to the press and otherwise undercut those principles

and that is what his critics are saying to him. Let's examine some

of those fundamental principles. The First Minister attacked a

lawyer for representing people because they are vile. He is just a

secretary threatened to cut off funding from a court because he did

not like their judgments. -- Justice Secretary. I do not like

some of their judgments but vile people having rights is the price

we paid for as all having those rights. Vile people being properly

defended in court is the price we pay for our right to be defended.

We make the laws. The independence of the judiciary is the price we

paid for the freedom to do that. Does the first Minister agree? Will

he retract his famous which undermined the principles of this

Parliament? -- his statements. was this administration who

underpinned the commitment and statute through the court was

Cobham's at 2008, showing our commitment to independence. -- the

courts of Scotland Act. The issue was not one of human rights in

terms of what the Scottish courts laid down. They said people had a

human right to have proper sanitation. It was about the

liability for all of that. It went back to 1999. We could take the

view that the people responsible for that potential liability were

the people in 2001/ 2002 who were in office. That is Lord Wallace,

the justice secretary and Iain Gray, the Deputy Justice Secretary.

People could say they should have had the foresight to make sure

sanitation was proper. The real issue was not the fact the Scottish

courts directed the correction of that situation which was done. The

real issue was whether or not our liability as citizens should extend

back to 1999, offering a potential legal bill of �100 million. That is

an issue of huge public concern. It is not about everyone having Human

Rights. It is about whether this Parliament, this jurisdiction, this

legal status -- legal system stands arm-in-arm with the rest of Europe.

Regardless of the liability to honest, decent, law-abiding people,

we should respect that back to 1999 and engage in compensation payments

to the filers members of society on that basis, I think he will stand

on a very lonely position indeed. To ask the First Minister when he

will next meet the Prime Minister. I met the Prime Minister last week

and no immediate plans to meet him again. Presiding Officer, the First

Minister's interview with Holyrood magazine amounted to an

extraordinary rant. It has characterised by vile intemperance,

provocative personal insults and the sneering disregard for the

independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. No one denies

there is a serious issue about how the Supreme Court engages the Scots

law in determining human rights issues. It is right that the

mechanisms be looked at. The First Minister's bellicose outburst has

obscured the real issue. It has made a last it -- laughing-stock of

Alex Salmond and diminish the office of First Minister in this

Parliament. Will he apologise for bringing the Office of First

Minister into dispute? No. First Minister said, just over a

month ago, that he did not have a monopoly and wisdom. That is self

evident. Unfortunately, characterised by his answer to my

first question, he seems to have a monopoly on arrogance and conceit.

Just to bring him back down to earth and remind him, once again,

that the judiciary is independent of government, there is still a

good old Scottish criminal offence called numbering a judge. Rather

than running the risk of the lord advocate having to prosecute the

First Minister, wouldn't it be easier for the First Minister to

eat humble pie and admit he completely botched this whole issue

and apologise to all concerned? Well, for many years, Annabel

Goldie was saying I did not give direct answers to direct questions.

She asked a direct question and a gave a direct answer and I still

get a suggestion that I should speak at greater length. I am

delighted that Annabel Goldie, after several weeks of being in

denial, now regards it as a serious, underlying issue. I see the

Conservative benches are suggesting that is not true. Can I read what

Paul McBride said about this issue? I apologise if any of this language

is intemperate. Describing the position of Annabel Goldie as

beyond a ludicrous warned Tory hostility to the SNP was getting in

the way of sensible policy-making. The Scottish Conservatives need to

explain what the policy is. What is their position on the Supreme

Court? The Scottish judges being outnumbered by English judges. If

that is what is said by the legal adviser to the Conservative Party

in Scotland, then why on earth does Party in Scotland not suggest there

is a real, underlying issue? If that is the language used about

Conservative Party policy, perhaps Annabel Goldie would be better to

look at addressing a policy issue rather than just asking the first

Minister for correct answers to questions. Mr McBride is not an

adviser for the Conservative Party. He is one of a whole litany of

names. What the First Minister does not guess -- get is this. Judges

apply the law, lawyer's advice on the law. If politicians like Mr

Salmond do not like that any change the law. -- then change the law.

There are -- it was only a few short months ago that Paul McBride

was cited by Annabel Goldie in question after question as having

great wisdom. I think he is a Scottish laird of great distinction.

Answering the second point, yes, indeed, I would love this

Parliament to be in a position to change the law. I would like us to

be in a position to change the law so that our criminal cases were

decided in Scotland. That is how it has always meant to be. I want to

change the law in that direction. I would love to change the law to

make sure that we were in an equal position with any other

jurisdiction in Europe and did not get into the ludicrous position of

having to have emergency legislation to avoid multi-million

payouts to some of the buy list Can I refer the First Minister's

lead story in today's Scotsman which casts doubt on the viability

of the borders railway. As a founder member of the cross-party

group in 1999, will the first Mr give a categorical assurance that

his government is fully committed to the reinstatement of this line

which is essential to the economy of my constituency? The train

crosstalk -- consortia... The borders railway will go ahead and I

hope the constituency member takes comfort from the second part of the

story, which went on to talk about the M 74 contract and showed how a

single bidder in that context demonstrated the ability to bring

forward a bit, not just on time, indeed ahead of time, but also

under budget. The real concerns in the north that the strategic

defence and security review could result in the MoD close thing for

home to a Black Watch, breaking a link going back to the 17 hundreds,

it will the first minister make urgent representation to Liam Fox

to give the base open and meet the chief executive of Historic

Scotland, to safeguard it as a tourist destination? I have done so

and have done so again. I've signed of the review this morning. I did

two things, I argued why it would be unreasonable to seek to their

bases close in Scotland, 60 % of our air base capacity, but also

concentrated on the maximum do -- Reid upon that of the army from

Germany back to Scotland. The army is currently working on the

principle of coming home and there was a thought on that principle,

not just Fort George, but some of the other bases should be entitled

to be receiving substantially more Homebase soldiers as the Scottish

army is brought home. I would like to ask the first minister what

issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. Issues

of importance to the people Scotland. The First Minister's

refusal to withdraw his embarrassing for him, for this

Parliament and for Scotland. He is creating a needless to vision,

between government and our independent justice system. I want

to give him another chance, one final chance, will he withdraw the

these outrageous remarks against our senior judges and lawyers?

answer is the same as I gave to Annabel Goldie a few minutes ago.

have to say, I am not surprised because the first minister has got

a certain degree of arrogance about this remark. The first minister of

Scotland should behave in this foolish manner. It is simply a

outrageous. Instead of attacking judges, isn't it high time he spent

his time on something more constructive? For example, if he

cannot get the basics right at Quantum Vale, how on earth will he

make if prisons a place for rehabilitation? If he cannot even

provide every prisoner with a bed? How can he expect them to get a

writ out of crime and stop them being professional lifetime

offenders? Isn't it the case that after two years of inaction, Scot

Am's committees are less safe because his government will not

take the failings at the prison seriously. -- Scotland. There are a

range of... Am interested in his choice of language. Today is ago

the Prime Minister described the Supreme Court judgment as offensive.

The reality is that there is political comment on judicial

decisions which is proper. The independence of the judiciary is

guaranteed by statute in this Parliament. In terms of his

extraordinary remarks, there have been a number of improvements. I

think the solution is to have less people on the short sentences in

prison. That is the policy which was supported by his predecessor in

this Parliament. That is the policy if a which is hopefully reducing

the prison population. I don't think the solution to that is to

embark on another prison building programme. I think the solution to

that is to find alternative means of punishment and sentencing. I

thought until now, that was the policies are bordered by the

Liberal Democrats as well. In terms of Scottish society being safer,

having what people will lookout in Scottish society is the 30 year low

in recorded crime, a 30 year low in recorded crime. I think the most

important aspect of which has been the 1000 extra police patrolling

the streets of Scotland. Unfortunately, while most liberal

Democrats the craw is the 30 year low in recorded crime,

unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats did not support the 1000

extra police which were required to bring about that better position.

To ask the first minister what actions that government is taking

to support the oil and gas businesses? North Sea oil and gas

makes a big contribution to the Scottish economy. It supports in

the region of 200,000 jobs in Scotland. The Treasury this year

expects to Secure a tax revenue of �13.4 billion, a record high in

terms of normal total. The Scottish government road to the Chancellor

on Tuesday with the support of the Labour Party in Scotland. It was

about their decision to increase tax. It was at her part analysing

the risks posed, suggesting solutions to safeguard the

viability and continued development of the most technically challenging

and mature fields in the North Sea. I thank the first minister for that

answer. The Chancellor's short-term focus on squeezing the maximum

amount of revenue from oil and gas is buzzing at risk the Investment

weenies in order to get the most out of the North Sea. He is more

interested in cash today than investment more. Not my words, but

the words of Chancellor George Osborne himself when in opposition.

While many of my constituents to Buick in the on and gas industry...

Does the first minister not agree with me that the whole incident

highlights why it would be far better for the taxation of the oil

industry to be in the hands of an experienced formal oil economists,

rather than the distant government whose sole interest is to slash the

budget deficit? I will rise that a challenge. If called, I will serve.

Can I say that she is quite right... Around the debate from 2007,

shortly before the election in that year, went Osborne was arguing for

stability in the tax regime and one that was respective -- reflective

of... That was one of the things he reminded George Osborne of in terms

of the meeting that has held within some two weeks ago. In terms of my

anxiety on this issue, because it is something which affects 15,000

jobs in Scotland, there will be 15,000 less jobs by estimate in 10

years' time than they would be if these changes hadn't been proposed.

And have accepted with the support of the Labour Party in Scotland on

this issue and that has been sent to the Chancellor. Above all, there

are three detailed points that can improve job prospects in Scotland.

By hope that this whole parliament recognises the importance of this

industry in our economy and recognises the crucial importance

of 15,000 jobs. Whatever difficulties there are in terms of

the Liberal/Tory coalition, I hope that as a parliament, we can put

the interests of Scottish workers as a paramount level and support

these free initiatives to bring stability but also to make sure

that investment in our North Sea is not interrupted. If it does the

first minister recognise the further concern in the oil and gas

industry regarding the Chancellor's proposals to tax helicopter

journeys to and from work in the North Sea on the same basis as

luxury business jets? Does he support the representations on this

matter made this week by business and local government in the north-

east and if he does agree with him, what action would he take to

support their representations? I do. I understand that that

proposal is in the process of being reinterpreted and I hope that

represents progress. I would have said, isn't that another argument

for air passenger duty being devolved to this Parliament? Under

air passenger duty devolved to this Parliament, we would recognise the

importance, would we not, of helicopter flights to and from

North Sea installations. If members could keep the questions short and

the answers be kept short as well. We will go through all the

questions. Hopefully we will include everybody. To ask the first

minister whether the Scottish government will review its changes

to the fuel poverty budget in light of the announcement of price

increases by Scottish Power. issue of price increases is a

serious one. The cabinet secretary for finance met with the Co of

Scottish Power on Tuesday and reiterated the Scottish

Government's concern about the proposed price rises. The Scottish

government programmes to improve energy efficiency and... Will be

supported by a budget of �48 million this year. The equivalent

spend in 2006/80,007 worth 45.8 million. Will the first minister

agree that the most substantial contribution in energy companies

can make tough-tackling full poverty is through exercising

restraint on prices, particularly given fees increases hit poorest

households the hardest? Given the reduction in spending and the last

Budget, would he agree the next one should Accra improve -- include

making more homes energy-efficient? Two things. I mentioned the figures

which indicate that in even in these incredibly pressing times,

the budget is higher than the one we inherited into has a seven but

also the members should know that in his talks with Scottish Power,

the Finance Secretary identified �10 million of unspent expenditure

to the Scottish Power Scheme which we can now discuss along with local

authority Palmers in seeing how that can be deployed in helping

people even further with energy efficiency and I know that Richard

Baker will be the first to acknowledge that the person who

established for the definition of fuel poverty says about these

Scottish energy efficiency package that it is the best UK example of

in providing a comprehensive approach and linking assistance to

energy-efficiency in the home. very concerned at this price rise,

which will... Does the first minister not agree with me that the

estimated extra �20 million in VAT receipts would be better spent in

tackling fuel poverty, compared to just propping up the age Treasury's

coffers? Yes, I do. John Swinney identified the �10 million of

expenditure. He has referred the matter to the regulator. Even at 5%,

the additional revenue from these price increases, if they were

repeated across the sector, which he seems unfortunately to be a very

likely trend, would bring in more than �20 million...