22/11/2012 Politics Scotland

Cook very warm welcome to the Scottish Parliament where there is

a pedigree of controversy before we even get moving. The presiding

officer has announced that she was suspending for one day the Labour

MSP Michael McMahon. There was a row over the altering of the

parliamentary record by Alex Salmond over the question of cream

shops. Objections were raised in those chamber. The ruling came from

the presiding officer and Michael McMahon shouted, you are out of

order! He apologised but she has suspended him. We can cross to the

chamber. I thought the chamber would like an update on the severe

weather facing many of our citizens. As off 12:30pm there were a number

of flood alerts. Heavy rain this morning may lead to the river

becoming... Initialled defences have been installed. Other areas

which could be affected include the white sands of Dom freeze and parts

of Air Show. The resilience unit has been active for most of this

week. We would certainly hope that ministers were doing their job! In

bed the 2011, the finance secretary made an announcement on college

funding that was still have to be cut this year. On Tuesday, he said

he was always on top of the figures. He confirmed that he knew at that

time that the First Minister was giving the wrong figures on

colleges. When fit John Swinney informed the First Minister that

college funding was to be cut this year and how often did he update

him? Ministers will attend to their job in doing their best to protect

the people of Scotland from these severe and extreme weather

conditions. The mistake for which I apologised last week was my mistake

in terms of the briefing which I'd read out from, which suggested that

college funding was increasing compared to last year and this, and

a table which had forgotten to include the 11 million additional

funding which had been devoted to colleges last here. I came to the

chamber and apologised in full, and Mr Russell has also apologised. In

any other parliamentary chamber I can possibly think of, ministers or

anyone else coming to a chamber and giving an apology or explanation is

accepted with good grace. In this chamber that should be the same

thing to do. I have looked carefully at the mechanism which

was introduced in this Parliament for all members, not just ministers,

for correcting inadvertent errors. I note that it has been used six

times by ministers and one SNP member. It has not been used by any

other member. Is that, I wonder, because they have never made

mistakes? Or is it perhaps because they have chosen not to correct the

mistakes that they had made? What ever it that was, it was that he

made. -- it was not a gracious acknowledgement of the mistake that

he made. Last week we were able to hand the First Minister the

document written by his own Cabinet Secretary which prove that we were

correct and yet he chose not to be honest with us. He did not answer

the question that I asked him. Are we to believe that this was not

discussed at Cabinet? It cannot surely be right that levels of

investment in Scotland's cabinets were not discussed at Cabinet. Did

the discussion take place and it so can the First Minister spell out

when they took place, and debated not, why not? I took the figure

from a briefing paper, that is the explanation. Let us examine the

conspiracy theory about this. Why it would I weed out the wrong

number from a briefing paper it was aware of the various documents that

had been presented? Why would the Education Secretary presented to

the education committee in the explanation is not simply that I

read out the wrong figure. The wrong figure is because week

increased college funding and last year and that was not counted in

the figure in the table but hype read out. I do hope that Johann

Lamont has bothered to beat it. The explanation is that I made a

mistake by beating out the wrong figure. Can be no move on to the

substantive issue about college funding in Scotland and the

evidence of this government to defend the education system in

Scotland from cutbacks in Westminster, and the surrender in

terms of policy from the Labour government? It does not take long

to get to the alibi when you are under pressure. Please take

responsibility for something. The question I would ask is when the

First Minister accidentally read about the wrong figure from a

briefing paper, why did his finance secretary and Education Secretary,

he knew there was not true, start nodding in agreement with him? It

goes to the heart of this Government's pretence of competence.

Key people in the dark, a search the opposite of the truth and hope

that nobody will notice. The worrying thing is not that the

First Minister allegedly got one specific to go wrong. If we are to

believe him, it is that he did not know whether spending in Scotland's

colleges was going up or down. Which is worst? The First Minister

is so incompetent that he does not know when spending is going up or

down, or that he deliberately misled the people of Scotland?

people want to be held responsible for their body language, then I

think the Labour Party are on a very difficult ground indeed in

terms of the body language which affects these benches. Can I

introduce Johann Lamont to some of the substantial points. She says it

is evading responsibility in order to point out that in Westminster

there are severe cuts affecting the people of Scotland. It is not

evading responsibility to point out that under the system of government

that the people of Scotland have supported, that hour budget is

related to that of Westminster. Therefore it is information that is

relevant, to look for what is happening to budget funding in

England and Wales. And Johann Lamont knows it is going down by

1.7 % this year in relation to last. I wish it was otherwise, but that

is the reality. South of the border, the figure is five %. Given that

hour figure in his direct the related to that south of the border,

that is relevant information. The second question I put to Johann

Lamont, is to support the regionalisation programme. This got

his government Hart supporting massive sums for Scottish colleges.

That is the strategy, through the regionalisation concept and that

investment, to bring about and protect the college infrastructure

of Scotland so that it can serve its duty towards the servants of

Scotland. That is not evading responsibility, that is living up

to responsibility of doing the best that this government possibly can

for that students and colleges of Scotland in the face of attacks

from the government in Westminster, in a system which has been

supported by Johann Lamont and her party. What on earth was all that

about?! This is about his choices in education and his inability to

be honest about what he is choosing to support and what he is choosing

not to support. This is a man who committed the most exact answer

ever given to a parliament any time, anywhere, at 12 o'clock, and by 5pm

has to admit that his statement was the opposite of the truth, because

we provided the information, not because he offered it. Whether

we're talking about Europe, investment in Scotland, or the

number of jobs in the renewable sector, the First Minister just

makes it up. Does he honestly expect us to believe that he, his

finance minister and Mike Russell did not agree College cuts in the

months before they came to this chamber to deny them. What is worse,

that he does not know what his government is doing to the colleges

of the country, or that he is prepared knowingly to mislead the

people of Scotland? Johann Lamont has never taken the facility of

making a correction in this chamber. I have a full list of the number of

times that the statements in this chamber had been at variance with

the facts. For example, what she claimed on the night of February

was the �800 million steel contract for the crossing, when impact of

the steel contract is about 10 % of the contract. When she claimed the

falling numbers for the health service, which is also not true.

This apparent position of Johann mistakes is in Serbia variance with

the facts that we can produce for the chamber. The difference is this,

that when the mistake was made, both myself and the minister for

education or apologise to the chamber and corrected the mistake.

The Labour Party do not correct the mistakes that they make on a

regular basis in this chamber, not to their correct or apologise for

the great mistakes, like the war in Iraq put upon us by a Labour

government. Like the PFI programme which is going to foist upon the

finances of Scotland. Years and generations to come. And no apology

from Johann Lamont about tearing up the SNP manifesto, but tearing up

the Labour manifesto on tuition fees, on prescription charges, on

transport for older people, on fair care for the elderly, each one of

which was identified in the Labour manifesto last year, and each one

of which has been consigned to the dustbin of history by haircuts

Commission. That is why this government is trusted by the people

of Scotland and the Labour Party is not. This goes to the heart of the

problem with the Scottish government. The idea that that is

an answer to the question I asked is complete nonsense. I asked him

what was worse, to be so incompetent that you do not know

that your choices on spending on leading to cuts in colleges, or

that you think you can get away with misleading people? The fact of

the matter is I have said we need to be honest not just about what we

choose to spend money on, but what are the consequences. What you have

done is to deny those consequences. By St to reflect again on the

choices you are making to cut colleges at the very time when our

young people need them most. question is that a mistake was made

and apologised for. The point on the question of honesty is that as

deputy leader of the Labour Party, Johann Lamont promised to freeze

the council tax, retain the commitment to free personal care,

retain the abolition for Scotland's students, retained a concessionary

travel scheme, no charges for prescriptions, and protect

frontline police numbers. Every single one of the solemn Labour

commitments is in the process of being sacrificed and jeopardised.

That is nothing like honesty and that is why the Labour Party will

be a long time before they get anywhere near government in

When will the First Minister next meet the Prime Minister. No plans

in any future. We have all just seen in his answers to the Labour

Party leader, but in one of his answers he said we must move on to

the substantive issue of college funding and recognise the

Government's efforts to defend the college budget. Last week the First

Minister repeatedly told us that the further education budget for

2012-13 was �546 million. Yet the draft budget for next year will be

reduced to �511 million. Can he confirm this represents a �34

million single year cash cut? That is more than 5%. It is actually

�512 billion. That is on the figures that have been presented

according to the table I have here. I presented with great care to this

chamber. If you look at the decline in funding happening in the Budget

to the English further education sector, a then the decline is far

greater than the decline that has happened in Scotland or is

projected in Scotland. Each year, the Education Secretary in

conjunction with the finance secretary has managed to put in

extra funding to the college budget. That is the process of protection.

If Ruth Davidson would take a glance at what is happening to her

colleagues south of the border she was the way we are protecting the

colleges of Scotland. With Davidson supports the position where

education budget is directly related to the education budget

pursued by her colleagues in England and Wales. I support the

position West Gatland will have its resources in order to dictate our

own priorities -- where Scotland. If we are under the constraint from

Westminster, we will do our best to defend our colleges and other

public services, but it ill behoves the Conservative Party where

budgets are collapsing south of the border to come to this chamber and

suggest anything other than the -- that perception is being pursued

for anything other than the people of Scotland. Still no

acknowledgement that when you are in charge of budgets in this

country and that your overall budget is reduced and you cut

spending to colleges, then -- that any responsibility lies with the

First Minister. Last Thursday, the First Minister told the chamber

that the third Det -- further- education budget was �500 million

plus and the budget for 2013 is for �436 million. -- �546 million, my

apologies. Order! Order! In 2011-12, he stated one budget and the

following year another. Yet today, the independent Information Service

insists that the true figure for 11-12 was actually 576 million and

the budget for the following year is 526 million. Can he explain this

discrepancy either now or at 5 o'clock? Given that Ruth Davidson

at no doubt inadvertently made and a set of 100 million in the first

figure she quoted... Order! documents presented to the

education committee which I have examined in great detail, in those

she will find the explanation. The �15 million was allocated to help

with the reorganisation in this financial year. It was given to the

funding council and allocated to be spent in this financial year. She

you will find that in detail in the explanation to the committee, which

either means she has not read the print of the explanation or she

chooses not to tell this chamber. When we come to accuracy in this

chamber, Ruth Davidson may remember that, in terms of her contribution

last week on college funding, she told this chamber she was giving

examples of course he's no longer available under the Education

stewardship. She put forward a list of courses. The eight N d technical

support which she said was gone under Mike Russell's Stu chip is a

available at Kilmarnock College, City of Glasgow College, North

Glasgow College, Edinburgh College, West Lothian College, Aberdeen

College and others. That goes for the other subjects she also said

were no longer available. When she reads that from SPICE, will we get

another apology? Or will the Conservative Party holder to the

idea that opposition parties in this chamber never come with

inaccuracies. They never Correct them and they never apologise, that

is the any difference. -- only difference. I would be delighted to

put into SPIES exactly which colleges have been cut under Mike

Russell. But what I would ask the finest -- first minister it is, in

that half answer, he tried to account for �15 million of

discrepancy as the difference between what was put to the

committee and what is available to SPICE. But he didn't mention the

other amount of 5 million, did he? It was also in stage three of the

Budget debate. There is a 30 million difference in the figures

if it is allocated in the correct gear as the documents. I'm

delighted that Ruth Davidson seems to acknowledge that the figure

exists and that she forgot to tell us about it in her question a few

minutes ago. Can I reminder of what she said in the chamber last week?

She didn't say they weren't available in one College. I will

give a few example of course is no longer available under the Segreti

eight of education's stewardship and then she went through them and

said they were gone. She told the chamber there were no longer

available. They were gone. Unfortunate before her, they are

steadying these courses across Scotland at the present moment.

They are not gone. They are there. They are happening. I hope she will

not give us the old Tory added, never apologise, never explain. --

adage. To last the first minister what

issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the camera that.

Issues of importance for Scotland. -- the Cabinet. What does it take

of the H -- for the education secretary to lose the confidence of

A position when no student in Scotland pays student fees, not

just for students at our universities but the 23,000

students in our colleges who would be paying tuition fees if Willie

Rennie and his colleagues had their way. As usual, he is an expert on

every other government. The last thing he is is an expert on his own

government. It is astonishing. It is astonishing that after all that

has happened in recent weeks, the First Minister believes that Mike

Russell should stay. It is rep wrong that the first minister puts

his interests above those of the colleges. We know the relationship

with college leaders has been wrecked. Principles will not speak

out encase the colleges suffer and the Education Secretary has got his

figures wrong again. Yet again, according to SPICE. Mike Russell is

so out of control that he is even reporting his own government to the

ombudsman. Doesn't he accept we need a change of approach? We need

figures we can all agree and then Education Secretary that we can

trust to deliver. When will they grasp the thistle? Well, I have a

list here of major figures in the Scots' colleges who have supported

Mr Russell. Mr Russell is pursuing a brief in an excellent manner. But

Willie Rennie asked me a question. He asked under what circumstances

would dilute confidence in one of my ministers? The circumstance

under which people would be entitled to lose confidence would

be if you took a firm, solid manifesto commitment, like no

tuition fees for the students of this country, and you tour that up

for a seat at the Cabinet table in Westminster. These would be the

circumstances, when not just your colleagues would lose confidence,

but the people would lose confidence in you. If Willie Rennie

looks around to his diminished number of colleagues and say that

the confidence the Liberal Democrats have lost is the

confidence of the people of this country and the single biggest

issue on which they lost that confidence was the decision to be

introduced tuition fees and the demonstration that they would do

anything to support the Conservative party in return for a

share of power. When that realisation dawns on Willie Rennie

and the extent of the loss of confidence they have been the

people of Scotland, then they would have the entitlement to say give

the people of Scotland will lose confidence in a government which

maintains the principle of free education in this country. A to ask

the First Minister what benefits will Scotland receive following the

announcement that the French firm is to locate its UK turbine

manufacturing site in Scotland? Earlier this week, I met with every

there who will locate its turbine manufacturing site here. It is

fantastic news for Scotland with the potential to create 750 jobs

for manufacturing and the supporting supply chain. It is good

news for the renewable sector which has seen a �2.8 billion investment

in Scotland since 2009 which delivers economic benefits to

communities the length and breadth of our country. I thank the first

minister. It is encouraging that companies from overseas continued

to look at Scotland as being a place to invest. Does the First

Minister agree with me that it is hampered slightly by the UK

government approach to energy policies given that it seems

confused and divided. Would he agree that the any way to rectify

this is to take the powers back to this Parliament in terms of energy

and policy and everything else? there is a great deal of strength

in that particular argument. The company was one of the fans who

recently signed a letter expressing concern about aspects of UK

government policy, energy policy. On Monday, I was delighted that

amongst the many welcomes of this announcement, it want -- was one

from a junior minister in Parliament he was recently involved

in a speech which was going to site his opposition to wing technology

which was then never delivered. I welcome John Hayes' salute for the

intentions but can I point out to the Conservative Party that it is

not possible to manufacture wind turbines if you do not believe in

wind energy playing a role in winter -- in energy policy. What

action the Scottish government will take in response to concerns that

the out-of-hours paediatric services at any just Lucien, Fife

and borders are at risk due to a shortage of trainee doctors. I have

made it clear to the free NHS that it will support every effort to

ensure paediatric services are available to children across the

region. Following a meeting earlier this week, the Cabinet secretary

for health allocated up to �100,000 in this financial year and another

sample over the next two financial years to support clinical personnel

which will be followed up with recruitment campaigns for permanent

trained staff to maintain services at St Johnston's hospital in

Livingston. I wonder what the families and children in five,

Lucien and borders believe because in June, it was said that the

closure of the paediatric ward in St John's was unsatisfactory and

remedial actually -- action was well under way. But we now find the

situation is very much worse with 13 staff down in the medical field.

We know of the ward is under threat of closure and services across five

and borders and Lothian are stretched to breaking point and

remedial action has not yet taken place. Is this yet another broken

promise? Is it another case of the public being misled? The first

minister might say what he lacks in the chamber with no regard to what

is actually happening in the real- world of the NHS? The Minister and

secretary met the health board who suggested the action I have

outlined which is designed to address the circumstances. We will

also work with NHS education stop - - Scotland to develop programmes of

study to support the development of nurse practitioners and specialist

paediatric services across the country. Both Arie response to the

immediate situation that has arisen and a longer term response to

enable the position to be better across Scotland. I would have

thought that is significant action in the face of a real problem and

there would have thought it would Their themes for 2014 a to build on

that success and the organisation is ongoing. The year of homecoming

has been cancelled by Stirling Council for understandable reasons.

He may be aware of reasons that North American visitors are less

likely to come here in June to attend an event at Bannockburn then

they would be to attend a planned gathering event in July or August.

How well the agencies ensure we have enough attractive events in

2014 to make up for the cancellation of the gathering so

that a large number of American figures -- visitors will still come

here? Susan McIntosh said we welcome the opportunity to work

with the 2014 team. I should say that, in terms of seeing a

significance of the 700th anniversary and an understanding of

how it must play a part in the year of homecoming, we took advice from

a variety of quarters. There was a press statement from 26th May 1920

10 which said, "the Scottish Conservatives believe the 700

battle -- anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn must be the

centrepiece of these national celebrations. The fate of the

battle was decided... And it must be the fatal -- focal point in

2013". The author of that report Higham following the advice to the

letter and I do hope it was not that advice that led to the

disgraceful decision not to elect him as leader of the Conservative

Party. A slightly satirical note to close, but very rumbustious

exchanges earlier. You could see that Labour and other parties are

concerned about the ways in which they can hold government ministers