First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. On this day, when we are all thinking of the soldiers’ lives that have been lost abroad, and the families who are grieving at the loss of those brave men, I ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01332)
Johann Lamont rightly reflects on the loss this week of three Scottish soldiers. I know that the whole Parliament will want to pay tribute to Corporal William Savage, Fusilier Samuel Flint and Private Robert Hetherington, of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, who died while serving in operations in Afghanistan.
We must also hope that the other six brave personnel who were injured in the explosion make a speedy and full recovery from their injuries. The incident demonstrates once again the dangers that are faced by our armed forces, who deserve our deepest gratitude for the job that they do in the most difficult and trying circumstances.
In this chamber, different views are, rightly, often expressed on the wisdom of military interventions in a variety of places in the world, but there is not, and never has been, any division whatever, in any party in this Parliament, about the respect in which we hold our armed forces for the sacrifices that they make.
No words, of course, can bring comfort to the families of soldiers at a time like this, but the thoughts and sympathies of everyone in Scotland on hearing this dreadful news will be with them as they cope in these dreadful times.
I thank the First Minister for what he said. He speaks for all of us in sending our sympathies and condolences to the families, and our very good wishes to those who are injured.
After the past 10 days, is not it the case that the First Minister’s plans on currency and Scottish pensions are in exactly the same condition as his receipts for his half-a-million-pounds trip to the Ryder cup—completely and utterly shredded?
The Scottish Government has put forward the policy that we believe is in the best interests of Scotland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom. I have to say that the Labour party’s arguing that it has any consistency or credibility in its currency policy does not bear examination.
I suppose on the question of currency, with so many supporters advising—[Interruption.]
Order.
Given that so many supporters advise that the policy that is advocated by the Scottish Government is correct, I would, on balance, agree with Alistair Darling, who said on 10 January on “Newsnight Scotland” that
“Of course it would be desirable to have a currency union ... of course a currency union is logical”.
Therefore I can say to the Parliament, for the only time in this First Minister’s question time, and probably others: I agree, on this subject, with Alistair Darling.
I am not sure that it was worth the First Minister’s while to hunt through his folder to find that line. Also, for the First Minister to talk about consistency and the currency in one sentence is bizarre for the rest of us.
The First Minister said this week that he will bet his career and his house on a yes vote in the referendum. Is not that wonderful? Who else shares his confidence? Hands up those on the front bench who will bet their career and their house on a yes vote. [Interruption.]
Order.
There are obviously no takers there. Let us try the back benchers. Which members behind the front bench—who have no career, but have a house—would bet their houses on a yes vote? Will they put their hands up? No? How about hands up those who support a separate Scottish currency? Maybe they do that only in private, when the First Minister is not watching.
Of course, the First Minister’s macho acclamation of his willingness to risk all, to show how much he believes in himself, is not the point. Is not it the case that the First Minister’s career and the First Minister’s house do not matter, and that what does matter is that he is taking a gamble with everyone’s house and everyone’s job, with a currency plan that he has evidently not thought through?
That worked about as well for Johann Lamont as it did for Ed Miliband previously, when he tried it in the House of Commons.
The big risk in Scottish politics is the risk to the Labour Party in the gamble that it is taking in campaigning hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder with the Conservative Party in the better together campaign. Therefore, we should ask ourselves whether, in the better together campaign, Labour policy has been totally subsumed by the Conservative Party. [Interruption.] I think that means “Yes.”
I have been looking at the policy positions of the better together parties at the previous general election. The only party that said “never” to the euro was the Conservative Party. The Labour Party’s 2010 manifesto said that there would be
“no membership ... without ... a referendum.”
The Liberal Democrats said that they
“believe that it is in Britain’s long-term interest to be part of the euro.”
Therefore, I think that it is fairly reasonable for Johann Lamont to accept the Scottish Government policy in favour of a sterling area and the substantial support that that has. What is interesting is the suggestion that the better together campaign has a singly policy. It has three policies—one for every party in it. The danger for the Labour Party in campaigning hand in hand with the Conservative Party is that it is gambling its future with the Scottish people.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, all the people who thought that perhaps the First Minister had a case will now realise that he has no case whatever. The First Minister says that we will keep the pound; the chair of the yes campaign says that we should have a separate Scottish currency and then prepare to join the euro. To put it most kindly, that is a complete shambles.
The First Minister said that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for the Royal Bank of Scotland nearly going under—the bank that the First Minister used to work for—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I thought that the SNP knew that he used to work for the RBS. Never mind. He now claims that the current chancellor has no control over the Bank of England. You simply could not make it up. The people of Scotland deserve honesty and clarity. This is not about the First Minister’s bravado and gambling, or about a smart soundbite for him; this is about people’s jobs, homes, mortgages, pensions and savings.
Members: Same old, same old.
It may be “same old, same old” to the SNP back benchers, but this is about people’s jobs, homes, mortgages, pensions and savings. That is not “Same old, same old”, apart from for the group of separatists; it is about the real world. For the sake of clarity, will the First Minister now rule out a separate Scottish currency?
I have news for Johann Lamont. What got the Royal Bank of Scotland, Northern Rock and many other financial institutions into trouble was not the Bank of England’s control of interest rates but, partly, the Financial Services Authority’s lack of regulation of the banking system. [Interruption.]
Order.
Which mastermind was, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in control of the FSA during that period? It was the same person who is now in control of the no campaign in Scotland—Alistair Darling.
Perhaps we should have a glance at the reports into the near collapse of the banking system and look at the roles of Gordon Brown, Ed Balls and Tony Blair, and the responsibility that they have been allocated in terms of their attitude and their lack of control and vigilance over the financial system.
We have put forward the Government’s viewpoint—which is supported by more Nobel laureates than you can shake a stick at, and by former members of the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England—that it would be in the interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK to share sterling.
Let me quote another expert. This time it is Simon Lee, from the University of Hull, who on Radio Scotland this week, said:
“For England and the rest of the UK, there would be major advantages of having Scotland remaining as part of a continuing monetary Union and monetary stability pact.”
That serious analysis puts forward the view that it is in the interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK. Perhaps that is why, when the current Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury came up to Scotland last week, at no point in all their interviews, and despite the bluff and bluster, did they say no. They know that the policy is in the interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK.
I think that there were more squirrels there than you could shake a stick at. One would think that the First Minister had never argued for lighter-touch regulation of the banking system and that he had never written that letter to Fred Goodwin, saying “Go on yourself—that’s absolutely brilliant!” before he departed the Royal Bank of Scotland.
However, one thing that we note from that response is that the First Minister did not answer the question. The fact is that although he is trying to break up Britain, the only things that are breaking up are his arguments and campaign. The currency union between the Czech Republic and Slovakia lasted just six weeks—if only the First Minister could hold on to a policy position for that long.
Seriously—Scotland is on pause while he punts his fantasy arguments. Only one thing is consistent: we cannot trust the First Minister on anything. On apprenticeships, he took 10,000 people who were already in jobs and called them apprentices. [Interruption.] We all know it. He said that he had abolished hidden waiting lists when he had fiddled them, and then he told us that he was increasing college spending when he was slashing it. Is not it the most accurate answer ever given to any Parliament anywhere that we cannot trust a word that the First Minister says?
I was fascinated by the argument that the Scottish National Party does not have consistency on policy. If I remember correctly, Johann Lamont’s latest policy on devolution for Scotland did not last six hours at the Labour Party conference.
Not for the first time, I point out to Johann Lamont that the more than 60 per cent increase in apprenticeships and the decline in youth unemployment from 25 to 16 per cent over the past year or so should be claimed as a substantial success. Her argument that that takes into account people who were already in work is nullified by the fact that there is a lower percentage of new apprentices going to people in work than when the Labour Party was in power with a reduced number of apprentices.
Now that I have explained it for—I think—the third time, perhaps Johann Lamont will not ask the question again, because it is clearly without any foundation whatever. The success that we are having with apprentices is a good thing for Scotland, as is the success that we are having in getting young people into work.
In her general line of attacking the Government’s record, Johann Lamont is doing nothing differently from her three predecessors, who did exactly the same thing. It is no different from Labour’s negativity and approach to the last election—I see Iain Gray sitting on the back benches—when it rubbished and diminished everything about Scotland’s potential, which is exactly Labour’s attitude to the question of currency. This is the country with the stronger budgetary position and a surplus in its balance of trade; the idea that we should be beholden to a country that is in a worse fiscal position and which has a deficit in its balance of trade is simply incredible.
The Labour Party’s negativity and its running down of Scotland is precisely the reason why, exactly two years ago, the people of Scotland passed their verdict on it, which is why its members are sitting on the Opposition benches in such diminished numbers. [Applause.]
Order.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. I, too, would like to recognise the service and the sacrifice of Corporal William Savage and Fusilier Samuel Flint from the Royal Highland Fusiliers, second battalion, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, and of Private Robert Hetherington from the 51st Highland, seventh battalion, who was a Territorial Army member. I associate myself and my party with the expressions of gratitude and condolence that have been offered to the families, and the good wishes that have been conveyed to those who were injured in the attack.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01330)
I acknowledge Ruth Davidson’s reference to the soldiers involved and their families.
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
To summarise the currency debate so far, the First Minister has said that he is right and that senior nationalists, separatist colleagues, yes Scotland board members, three former Bank of England experts and his own former economic adviser are all wrong.
Is the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland wrong, too? In the past week, it has published a report that says that it would be illegal under European Union law for pension schemes between a separate Scotland and the rest of the UK not to be fully funded. The First Minister’s response is simply to say, “We’ll change the law—we’ll just rip it up.”
How many of the 27 member states that he needs to agree has his Government had discussions with on the issue, to protect the pensions of the people of Scotland?
We are not seeking an opt-out from the EU regulations, which, of course, are designed to facilitate cross-border pension schemes.
If Ruth Davidson had read the ICAS report, she would have seen that it not only raised the issue but put forward the three solutions to it—none of which, incidentally, involves opting out of EU pension regulations. It called for discussions with the UK Government to be facilitated. We are very willing to have such discussions, not only on that issue but on a range of others. Perhaps Ruth Davidson could use the extraordinary influence that she has with her colleagues in London to ensure that they agree with the Defence Committee, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and ICAS, and engage in constructive discussions with the Scottish Government. We want to engage in such discussions. Come on—strike out for Conservative Party independence in Scotland!
I have the ICAS report here. It raises a number of questions—12 of them, in fact—none of which seemed to be answered by the First Minister’s finance spokesman on Sunday, when he took to the airwaves to try to protect the Government. The question that I liked most was whether there would be a Scottish protection fund. The UK pension protection fund currently pays and manages the pensions of no fewer than 16,000 Scots whose schemes have gone under.
Another question for the First Minister comes from Ronald Bowie, who is a past president of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. He knows a thing or two about pensions. He says:
“It can take 50 years to prove a pensions’ system works, and by then it is too late to do anything if it doesn’t ... The odds strongly favour staying within the UK system. Why gamble against it?”
The First Minister admitted on television that he is a betting man. On the currency and pensions, is he not gambling with the financial future of every man, woman and child in Scotland?
I suggested that the Conservative Party and the Labour Party might have different policies on the currency. I now see that they are using exactly the same lines and questions. I know that it is unfortunate for Ruth Davidson that Johann Lamont gets the first question, but a suggestion disnae get any better the second time it is made.
The position of an independent Scotland will be stronger than the position of the UK with regard to pensions because social protection, including pensions, takes up 14.4 per cent of Scotland’s wealth, whereas it takes up 15.9 per cent of the UK’s. Social protection, including pensions and tax receipts, takes up 38 per cent of tax receipts; the equivalent figure for the UK is 42 per cent.
As is the situation with the balance of trade, the balance of payments, the fact that oil and gas reserves are an asset not a liability and the fact that the great industries of Scotland are buttressing sterling at the present moment, the fact that we have less of a liability in terms of social protection makes independence more affordable not less affordable.
Given what the Institute of Fiscal Studies has said about the Tory party’s pension plans impoverishing the vast majority of pensioners and making them worse off, I think that members of the Conservative Party are the last people on earth who should greet any tears or pretend any concern for pensioners across the country.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. I, too, recognise those who have lost their lives serving their country in Afghanistan. Our thoughts are with their families and friends at this difficult time.
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01341)
I recognise the cross-party basis on which we acknowledge the respect that our troops and soldiers are due.
The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Dennis Canavan, Jim Fairlie, Patrick Harvie, Gordon Wilson and Jim Sillars all reject the First Minister’s plans to join a British currency union. When her policies came under pressure from her own side, Margaret Thatcher said:
“You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.”
Now that he has dug in on his British currency plan, is the First Minister transforming into the Mrs Thatcher of Scottish politics, or is he for turning?
No, we will continue to put forward the best interests of the Scottish people. That approach has worked out rather successfully for the Scottish National Party over the past few years and, because it is recognised that it is what we do, it will continue to do so.
An interesting lack of an answer.
DeAnne Julius, a founding member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee—the committee on which the First Minister is relying to deliver his plans for the British currency union—gave the First Minister another warning this morning. Last week, Professor John Kay—one of the First Minister’s favourite advisers—rejected his plans as well. Further, the First Minister cannot dismiss all of his friends in the yes camp, who are telling him no.
DeAnne Julius said that if the First Minister wanted the option of a Scottish currency, he would need to wobble now. He is under pressure from friend and foe to wobble. Is he wobbling?
I have lost track of whether Willie Rennie wants me to U-turn, wobble or perform cartwheels. Any wobbling, U-turning or cartwheels that I could perform would be as nothing compared with what the Liberal Democrats have achieved through their performance in politics.
In 2010, Willie Rennie stood on a manifesto commitment—I know he lost the election, but he still stood on those commitments—that it is in Britain’s long-term interests to be part of the euro. That was on page 67 of his manifesto. Has he been wobbling, U-turning or performing cartwheels over the past three years? Perhaps the biggest wobble that concerns people in Scotland regarding Willie Rennie is the role that he and his party have played in putting the Conservative Party into power in Westminster.
Proceeds of Crime (Communities)
4. To ask the First Minister how communities are benefiting from proceeds of crime. (S4F-01351)
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is having a real impact on how Scotland’s prosecutors and police tackle criminality at every level. Since the legislation was introduced 10 years ago, more than £80 million-worth of assets have been seized. As a result of the actions of this Government in 2007-08, our communities are now benefiting directly from the seizure of those assets. The hugely successful cashback for communities programme is investing crooks’ cash in facilities and activities for young people and their communities the length and breadth of the country.
Can the First Minister confirm that the investment of the £80 million that he mentioned and of future recoveries that are made through the proceeds of crime legislation will continue across Scotland through the cashback for communities programme, to build on the impact of the £50 million that has been invested since 2007?
Yes, I can. Sandra White is right to point to the £50 million that has been recovered, directly benefiting more than 600,000 young people and generating more than 11,000 volunteers, who are now putting something back into communities. It is a first-class scheme that deserves widespread support. It touches and helps the constituencies and areas of every member in this chamber.
I also point out to the chamber that, in 2011, the amendment to schedule 4, which added criminal lifestyle offences to the 2002 act, changed the burden of proof, so that it is now for the accused to prove that their assets were legitimately obtained rather than for the Crown and prosecutors to prove that the assets were illegally obtained. I make that point because it was not altogether clear to me that some people who were less than welcoming of the success of the cashback for communities campaign were aware of that important legislative change, which shifted the balance and the burden of proof and will add to the success of the 2002 act.
The First Minister might remember that it is now 10 years since I briefed him and other MPs at Westminster on the need for the legislation. He will also know that his own annual Scottish strategic assessment of the business of serious organised crime identifies a turnover of more than £1 billion for organised crime. In light of that, is he satisfied that an average asset recovery of £8 million a year is sufficient, or will he commit to a further review of the operation of the 2002 act to deliver improvements in the results for future years and greatly increase asset recovery?
I pointed out that the measure was introduced 10 years ago. I also pointed out that the cashback for communities scheme, which I think is a really important aspect of it for mobilising popular support, was introduced in 2007.
On the growth in the recovery of proceeds of crime, in the first year £2 million was recovered, last year the figure was £12 million, and the figure has reached a peak of £25 million. Over the period, there has been constant growth in the assets that have been recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
On the constant review of the legislation to make it more effective, the point that I made a few seconds ago about the changes that were made in 2011 is absolutely crucial. The burden of proof was changed to allow more criminal assets to be properly seized under the law. Also, the changes that have been made and are being made to the police service in Scotland—operating with the Crown Office, which has a particular focus on the proceeds of crime—will assist in making that highly successful act and scheme even more successful in the future.
Pensions Regulations
5. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the European Commission regarding an opt-out from pensions regulations should Scotland become independent. (S4F-01345)
As I have said, the Scottish Government would not seek an opt-out from European pensions regulations in an independent Scotland because one is not required or necessary.
What are the Scottish Government’s plans for meeting the much more stringent European Union sovereignty requirements that would apply to the thousands of Scots in pension schemes that operate across the United Kingdom? Specifically, does he agree with the comments of his financial secretary on Sunday that Scotland would seek either longer timescales or exemptions from the EU directive?
The three options for dealing with the issue were set out in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland report, and none of them requires an opt-out from European legislation. I suggest that we concentrate on those options. We agree with ICAS that those are the options for dealing with the matter, and we agree with its call for fruitful discussions between ourselves and the UK.
I gently remind Ken Macintosh why there is an occupational pensions problem, why there are deficits in many UK pension schemes at the moment and why arrangements must be made to close those deficits over a reasonable period. It was the 1997 budget, masterminded by Gordon Brown, that raided people’s pensions and caused the difficulty in the first place. Yes, an independent Scotland will redress the difficulties; yes, we will follow the helpful ICAS advice on how to do that; no, there will not be a difference or change in the amount of time that companies are allowed to recover; and yes, we will consider the three options for dealing with the issue that have been put forward. Let us also remember which party is responsible for bringing about the problem in the first place.
Modern Languages (Secondary Schools)
6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to increase the uptake of foreign languages in secondary schools. (S4F-01339)
We have a good policy to improve the teaching of languages in schools. It has been successful in stabilising the number of foreign language highers being taken and in ending the years of decline, during which the numbers fell by 17 per cent between 1992 and 2006-07. The most recent figures show 7,755 entries for language highers—that is up 1.3 per cent on 2006-07.
We recognise that languages are a crucial skill for our young people and our economy. That is why, in this year alone, we are investing £4 million in the one-plus-two model, under which every child will learn two languages, starting in primary school.
The First Minister did not mention that, since 2008, there has been a 28 per cent decline in the number of those taking a modern language at standard grade level. That alarming decline is causing concern both for educationists and for the business community. We know that foreign language assistants are key to language teaching, so why has the First Minister’s Government presided over a 73 per cent drop in their number between 2007 and 2012? What will he do to restore the numbers to where they were when he took office?
Murdo Fraser should not base all his research on whatever is in the newspaper on Monday, especially when it turns out that the research did not take account of the figures for higher presentations. Admittedly, those figures represent only a small increase since 2006-07, but nonetheless they are a huge contrast with the rapid and extraordinary decline, which—I gently remind him—started under the years of Conservative Government in Scotland. We regard language assistants and language teaching as high priorities. That is exactly why we have introduced the one-plus-two model, which will deliver in primary school, starting at the appropriate level, exactly the beneficial results that both Murdo Fraser and I will unite to achieve.
That ends First Minister’s questions. I will allow a short pause to enable members not participating in the members’ business debate to leave and the public gallery to clear.