First Minister’s Question Time
The next item of business is First Minister’s question time. Today the questions will be answered by the Deputy First Minister.
Engagements
1. To ask the Deputy First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02011)
With your permission, Deputy Presiding Officer, and, I am sure, on behalf of the entire chamber, I express my sincere condolences to the friends and family of Keane Wallis-Bennett. Keane’s death on Tuesday morning at Liberton high school is a tragedy that has horrified all of us.
A thorough Police Scotland and Health and Safety Executive inquiry is now under way and I am limited in the detail that I can share. However, I spoke this morning to the City of Edinburgh Council’s chief executive, Sue Bruce. She advised me that the council is co-operating fully with the inquiry. In addition, it has convened an incident response team and is conducting inspections of all other schools in its area.
This has been a most difficult time for family, friends, pupils and staff at the school. I am sure that all our thoughts, and indeed the thoughts of people throughout Scotland, are with them today.
Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for that statement. Throughout the chamber, we share the sentiments that she expressed, at the saddest of times for the family, the school and all concerned.
Alex Salmond is off to the United States again today. I hope that he has remembered his trews this time—the taxpayer should not have to pay for another pair. I hope, too, that he has left the taxpayers’ credit card behind, because he has still not accounted for his spending on his trip to the Ryder cup in 2012.
I asked the First Minister in January why a freedom of information request about his spending on that trip had not been answered. He said:
“The freedom of information request will be answered as soon as possible.”
He then added:
“It will and why should it not be?”—[Official Report, 23 January 2014; c 26962.]
Nearly three months on, that request has not been answered. Can Nicola Sturgeon tell me now why it should not be?
I am quite flabbergasted that that is, in Johann Lamont’s mind, the big issue of the day. Nevertheless, she is the one who decides the questions that she asks.
All the relevant information about the trip to which Johann Lamont refers is, as far as I am aware, in the public domain. If there are specific pieces of information that Johann Lamont wants, she can request them and I will undertake today to seek to respond to that.
Johann Lamont started her question by referring to the First Minister’s trip to the United States of America to take part in tartan week. It is worth pointing out a couple of things to the chamber in that regard. In the space of five days, the First Minister will undertake more than a dozen meetings with United States businesses that have an interest in Scotland, which we hope will lead to the creation of hundreds of new jobs throughout the country. I would hope that Johann Lamont would mention that.
Johann Lamont also referred to the Government’s credit card. It might be interesting to the chamber if I shared some of the costs of previous tartan and Scotland weeks. I have the costs here going back to 2005; I will not read out the costs for every year, but I will take a couple of examples.
In 2006, when the current First Minister was not in office—I believe that it was one Jack McConnell—the bill for tartan week was more than £1 million. The bill for Scotland week in 2013—the most recent year that we have available–was £326,000. I think that the First Minister is right to promote the country in the United States this week. I think that he is right to do that and to get much more value for money than was perhaps the case on the part of the previous Administration.
We know that Alex Salmond is notorious for not answering the question that he was asked—[Interruption.]
Order, please.
—but now he and his Deputy First Minister are refusing to answer the question that he himself asked. For the information of the Deputy First Minister, the First Minister has not answered the freedom of information request and he has not answered a series of parliamentary questions either.
The First Minister chose to stay in the $2,000-a-night Peninsula hotel in Chicago, far away from the rest of the Scottish delegation. We know that because his spokesperson told an official briefing of journalists that that is where he stayed, and those journalists printed it. Now, the Scottish Government has said that it cannot tell us where he stayed, and for how much, for security reasons. Since the First Minister’s spokesperson has already told us where he stayed, can we now be told how much taxpayers’ cash Alex Salmond spent on himself in the Peninsula hotel?
I have absolutely no doubt that Johann Lamont would be standing in the chamber criticising the First Minister if he were not going overseas when appropriate to promote Scotland’s economic interests. However, when he does that, she stands here and criticises him as well. I think that we can safely conclude that Johann Lamont will criticise this Government regardless of what it does, and the reason for that is that she has no positive programme and no positive ideas of her own to put forward.
I can certainly tell Johann Lamont where the First Minister will not be staying when he is in New York this week. He will not be staying at the Benjamin hotel, which, I understand, is frequented by Paul McCartney, and was the favoured hotel of Jack McConnell when he attended tartan week.
Earlier, I gave the cost of tartan week in 2006. Let me give the 2005 figure: £895,000. The 2007 figure was £765,000. In no year since this Government has been in office have the costs of going to tartan week or Scotland week been anything close to the figures that I have just read out.
Can we agree that it is right for the First Minister, as it was right for his predecessors, to go overseas to promote Scotland’s economic interests? Can we also agree that they have a duty to ensure value for money for the taxpayer? Based on the figures that I have read out, I think that this Government is rather better at doing that than the previous Administration was.
First, there is an issue of public trust and accountability for the public purse. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
Secondly, nobody is disputing that there should be visits abroad. The Deputy First Minister is able to quote figures about previous trips, but the point is that we cannot quote the figures for the cost of Alex Salmond to go to the Ryder cup. [Interruption.]
Order, please. [Interruption.] Ms Grahame!
It is an issue of transparency, and now the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are refusing to answer. The only thing that we know for sure about the First Minister’s trip to the Ryder cup in 2012 is that the Scottish Government does not want to explain how much taxpayers’ cash Alex Salmond spent on himself. When we get an answer, the number of people on the trip changes and the figures change, but no accounting is given.
The First Minister went to the $2,000-a-night Peninsula hotel in September 2012. In January 2014, he still could not say how much money he had spent on himself. In January 2014, the First Minister said that the question about his spending would be answered
“as soon as possible”,
and he asked,
“why should it not be?”—[Official Report, 23 January 2014; c 26962.]
It is now April 2014. The question has not been answered. Why should it not be answered now?
This is desperate stuff from the leader of the Opposition. The key points about Alex Salmond’s visit to the Ryder cup are, first, that he was promoting Scotland as the host of this year’s Ryder cup. Secondly, the reason that I am able to quote the figures that I have just read out is that we are transparent about the cost of overseas trips. We are also transparent about the benefits from those overseas trips, such as the jobs created. As I have been able to demonstrate from the figures that I read out, it would seem that we get better value for money than predecessor Governments did.
What Johann Lamont has chosen to do today—not for the first time and, I am pretty sure, not for the last, she has indulged in smear and insinuation instead of discussing the real issues of the day—is probably one of the reasons that Labour is in the sorry state that it is in Scotland today. As was commented on in Holyrood magazine just this week, every second word of Johann Lamont’s party conference speech started with the letter “S” and ended with the letter “P”. She talks more about the Scottish National Party than she does about Labour’s prospectus for Scotland. I cannot put it any better than Holyrood magazine did:
“What has happened to Scottish Labour? It seems hope has been replaced by hate. It used to be a party of inclusivity but now it condemns its critics and isolates dissenters”.
Labour has lost its way and Johann Lamont has just demonstrated that today.
It has been said that we can tell when the First Minister is “unadjacent to the truth”. Nicola Sturgeon’s lips are moving. [Interruption.]
Order.
The facts of the matter are very simple. In all of that nonsense, there was no answer to a simple question about spending public money. The public deserve to know.
The First Minister spent £500,000 to go to the Ryder cup, but he cannot, or will not, explain what he spent on himself. Was it like his trip to China, when he spent taxpayers’ money on himself and repaid it only when there was a freedom of information request? Is that why the First Minister has not answered the freedom of information request this time? Is that why, a year and a half later, ministers still will not answer parliamentary questions on how much cash he spent? Has he paid any money back? The First Minister posed the question in January. Why should these questions not be answered as soon as possible? I ask the Deputy First Minister, why should they not be answered now?
Johann Lamont’s accusations and allegations are simply untrue. If her proposition is that money spent on the First Minister going overseas to promote the country is money spent on himself, I assume that she thinks that the more than £1 million spent on tartan week in 2006 was money spent on Jack McConnell personally. The utter hypocrisy of Johann Lamont on this issue is absolutely breathtaking.
Johann Lamont can smear the First Minister as much as she likes; she can smear me as much as she likes. The real question that Johann Lamont will have to answer—and she will have to answer it to her own back benchers—is why, seven years into this SNP Government, we are still ahead in the polls. She is languishing in the polls.
I can understand why Johann Lamont might not like the quotes that I have read out from Holyrood magazine. Here is another one: “Scottish Labour seems moribund.” Perhaps she will pay more attention to a quotation from Len McCluskey, the leader of Unite union. He said that Labour has to do more to show that it is,
“on the side of ordinary people”,
and suggested that the reason the SNP is in government and Labour is in opposition is that the SNP is more radical than the Labour Party.
On today’s performance, Johann Lamont is staying in opposition. In fact, on today’s performance she ain’t even fit to be in opposition, let alone government.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. I, too, convey my thoughts and prayers, and those of my party, to the family of Keane Wallis-Bennett, her friends, teachers and her fellow pupils following this week’s tragedy.
To ask the Deputy First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02008)
No plans in the near future.
Scotland’s economy is starting to turn a corner, with growth rates among the highest in the western world, yet today we hear more warnings about the impact that a vote to break up Britain would have on that Scottish success story. Those warnings do not come from politicians but from job creators. Keith Cochrane, chief executive of the Weir Group says:
“the costs of independence are guaranteed but the benefits are uncertain. That has the potential to make Scotland less competitive, not more.”
Having seen the Scottish National Party’s plans, he is voting no.
This affects Scottish jobs. I see that the Deputy First Minister has upgraded the usual big blue folder of diversionary quotes and googled clippings, so I hope for a simple answer to a very simple question. How many Scottish jobs are held by businesses that have broken cover with concerns about independence in the past few weeks?
I start on a note of agreement with Ruth Davidson, although I am not promising that it will last very long. The Scottish economy is showing signs of recovery and we should all welcome that. I suggest that those signs of recovery are in spite of Westminster policy and not because of it.
I turn to the important point about Keith Cochrane’s comments and the Weir Group report. The Weir Group is an important company in Scotland. I welcome its contribution to the debate and I am looking forward early next month to meeting senior management and staff at the Weir Group to discuss those very issues. I hope to reassure them on some of the points that have been made this morning. It is worth pointing out—this is not a criticism of the Weir Group; rather it is to provide some context—that the Weir Group was against devolution before the 1979 and 1997 referendums. It warned then of consequences that simply did not materialise. It is also worth pointing out that the Weir Group, a successful Scottish company, operates in 70 countries around the world; an independent Scotland would form the 71st country in which it operates.
I echo many of the comments in the Weir Group’s report. Scotland “could succeed” as an independent country. “Independence would bring” control over policy making “closer to the people”. It would allow an expanded range of economic policy levers to be tailored to the needs and circumstances of our economy and to the distinctive views and values of our people, and the flexibility to tailor business tax rates would be a significant attraction of Scottish independence in principle.
Many of the not-so-positive Weir Group comments are predicated on an assumption that there would be a separate currency. That is not the Scottish Government’s position; as we now know, that is not the United Kingdom Government’s real position either. I say simply to Ruth Davidson:
“Of course there would be a currency union.”
Those are the words of a UK minister.
The words of her Westminster colleague, Angus MacNeil, however, were that he has no idea how long that would last. Let us be absolutely clear about what the Deputy First Minister said. She misrepresents the Weir Group absolutely. It is clear that its views are nothing to do with the currency union. The group says:
“Under any currency scenario, it is likely an independent Scotland would face: increased borrowing costs; increased taxes and significant public spending cuts. All of which would have an impact on businesses and households.”
None of what the Deputy First Minister said answered the question that I asked about the number of jobs. Here is the answer that she was looking for: more than 50,000 people are employed in Scotland by firms that, in the past few weeks alone, have warned of the risks of separating us from our biggest market. That does not include umbrella organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, Scottish Financial Enterprise or Scottish Engineering, which, among them, represent more than half a million workers in Scotland.
We know the SNP’s stock response to those voices: the First Minister dismisses them, the cybernats attack them—[Interruption.]—and SNP back benchers shout them down in the chamber and in committee hearings. Will the Deputy First Minister stand apart from all those negative, angry men? [Interruption.]
Order. [Interruption.] Order!
Can the Deputy First Minister stand apart from all those negative, angry men? [Interruption.]
Order.
What is her response to all the Scottish firms raising legitimate concerns and entering the debate?
I am always delighted to stand apart. I am always delighted to stand up and argue the case for Scotland to be an independent country and I will continue to do it.
I did not misrepresent the Weir Group. I read out some positive comments that it had made and accepted the less-than-positive comments. I also said—I hope that Ruth Davidson will take this in the spirit in which it is intended—that I look forward to engaging directly with the Weir Group on some of the points that it raised today and that I hope that I will be able to reassure it on some of them.
Ruth Davidson mentioned a number of things. For example, she mentioned borrowing costs. Perhaps not surprisingly, she did not mention the recent report from Standard & Poor’s that said that, even excluding North Sea revenues, an independent Scotland would qualify for its “highest economic assessment”. Let us not be too selective in the quotations.
I made a serious point about numbers of jobs. I am not criticising any company that speaks out. Companies absolutely have the right to do that. I am saying that many of the companies that expressed concerns about independence expressed precisely the same concerns about devolution. The point that I go on to make is that those concerns did not materialise. All those companies are still here. All of them are prospering and the reason why they are prospering is that Scotland is a business-friendly country. An independent Scotland will continue to be a business-friendly country and, with our hands on the full economic levers, we will be able to make it an even more business-friendly country.
My last point relates to angry, negative men. I do not know whether the better together source that I am about to quote is a man or a woman. I have to be honest and frank about that. However, commenting on The Guardian’s report of the UK Government minister who said,
“Of course there would be a currency union,”
the better together source said:
“They’re completely off their rocker some of these people. It’s bound to be a Tory.”
I think that that is very unfair to the Tory party.
Before I move on, I remind the chamber of rule 7.3 of the standing orders, which requires all members to conduct themselves in a courteous, respectful and orderly manner. I expect us to proceed in that fashion hereafter.
I apologise to the members I have been unable to call for constituency questions; that is partly due to the Deputy First Minister’s statement but also due to the length of exchanges.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the Deputy First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02009)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
From Sunday, more than 2 million Scottish workers will pay £700 less income tax than in 2010 because of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to raise tax thresholds to £10,000. Next year, that will rise again to take even more people out of tax altogether. I have been puzzled by the Scottish Government’s opposition to that policy. Why does the Deputy First Minister oppose tax cuts for millions of Scots on low and middle incomes?
I am not in opposition to that policy. We have said clearly that, at the point at which Scotland became independent, we would inherit the prevailing income tax rates and personal allowances. However, I am concerned about the overall impact of Westminster policies on the most vulnerable in our society. The Treasury’s own publication on the impact of the budget on Scottish households shows that the average loss is £757 and that the second hardest-hit group in the Scottish population is the bottom quintile—the poorest people in our society—who are hit more than the average.
The overall impact of the policies of the Government that Willie Rennie supports is making the poorest in our society worse off. I do not agree with that and am deeply concerned about it. I am also deeply concerned by the fact that, for example, the minimum wage has not kept pace with the rate of inflation. Had it kept pace with the rate of inflation over the past few years, the poorest and the lowest paid in our society would be some £600 a year better off.
It is fine for Willie Rennie to pluck individual policies out of thin air, but it would fit him better to look at the overall impact of UK Government policy.
I think that the Deputy First Minister is confused. I have heard her back benchers say that they do not support cutting income tax for low and middle-income workers; her MPs voted against it; it was not in her manifesto; and page 119 of the white paper makes it clear that it would not happen under the Scottish National Party. It is even more important now, given that because of the UK Government’s economic plan, 130,000 more people are in work. Just what is her position? Is she for or against helping low and middle-income workers cut their income tax?
I am in favour of helping low and middle-income workers. I have already referred to the policy of this Government: if we had control over the minimum wage, we would ensure that it rises at least in line with inflation every year. I am also in opposition to many of the policies that are being implemented by the UK Government that lead to the scenario that I spoke about earlier on.
Willie Rennie cannot escape the facts. He is waving the white paper at me. I am proud of the white paper and I am happy to stand by the content of it. I am waving at him an extract from the Treasury’s own publication on the impact of the recent budget, which shows that cuts to the lowest quintile of households in Scotland are equivalent to £757, which is 2.1 per cent of income. That is the reality of the policies that the Government that Willie Rennie supports in London is implementing. One of the reasons that I want Scotland to be independent is so that we have the freedom to pursue policies that will make this country wealthier but also fairer for everybody who lives here.
Trident
4. To ask the Deputy First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the Trident nuclear weapons system being based in Scotland. (S4F-02012)
The Scottish Government’s position is, as set out in “Scotland’s Future”, that an independent Scotland would neither possess nor host nuclear weapons. That is not up for negotiation.
It is our view that Trident should be removed from Scotland within the first term of an independent Scottish Parliament. Following a vote for independence in September this year, the Scottish Government would prioritise agreement with the UK Government on the arrangements needed for the speedy, safe removal of Trident nuclear weapons from Scotland.
Some on the Opposition front bench think that Trident is a wee thing, but the majority of the people of Scotland want rid of these weapons of mass destruction. Can we ensure that the nuclear-free stance that the Deputy First Minister has talked about will be enshrined in our constitution, so that we rightly put teachers before Trident, nurses before nukes and bairns before bombs?
As Kevin Stewart knows, the constitution of an independent Scotland will be for the people of Scotland to determine, but let me make my view clear: I would want to see the written constitution of an independent Scotland banning nuclear weapons from being possessed by future Scottish Governments.
The case against Trident—the existing Trident and certainly the replacement of Trident—is overwhelming. When I address the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament rally in Glasgow this coming Saturday, I will be happy to outline fully why I want to see an end to nuclear weapons in Scotland.
I call Malcolm Chisholm. Very briefly please, Mr Chisholm. [Interruption.]
Sorry, Presiding Officer—I did not hear you.
Today it is no concessions on Trident. Yesterday the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth said that there would be no restrictions on the freedom of an independent Scotland to tax. Is it not the case that the Scottish Government is trapped in a triple fantasy—
Briefly please, Mr Chisholm.
First, it thinks that it would get a shared currency without any significant concessions; secondly—
Mr Chisholm, make it on the issue of Trident, please.
Secondly, on Trident, the Deputy First Minister said that there would be no concessions on Trident, while believing that there will be a shared currency in the first place—
I am afraid that I have to ask you to hurry along.
Thirdly—[Interruption.]
Mr Chisholm, I am sorry—
This is a question on concessions that the Deputy First Minister believes will not have to be made for a shared currency. Is it not the case that there will not be a single currency in the first place?
The agreement on the currency will be based on the economic advantages that exist for Scotland and the rest of the UK and on a sensible negotiation on the debt position.
Members of the Scottish Government have set out and will continue to set out the advantages of being able to set our own priorities, which every other independent country can do. That will be the benefit to Scotland of being an independent country, and it is one of the reasons why I believe that, deep down inside, Malcolm Chisholm supports that, too.
Because of the statement and all the interruptions, I will carry on with questions.
“An overview of local government in Scotland 2014”
5. To ask the Deputy First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the Accounts Commission report, “An overview of local government in Scotland 2014”. (S4F-02015)
The Scottish Government welcomes the report, which provides a high-level overview of local authority performance across Scotland and identifies a number of challenges for local authorities in the future, including ensuring that strong governance procedures are in place, dealing with the effects of Westminster’s welfare reforms and providing value for money to deliver the best possible services for residents.
Is the Deputy First Minister concerned about the report’s findings that council budgets are being reduced at a time of increasing demand and rising costs, that budgets have been balanced by reducing staff numbers and increasing charges, that the situation is unsustainable and that people who are on the lowest and most modest incomes have been hardest hit?
Given that her Scottish National Party leader in Glasgow City Council does not want Glasgow to lose out from her Government’s spending allocations, will the Deputy First Minister tell us how she will use her majority in the Parliament in the next two years to sort out the systemic underfunding of local government services?
I am sure that it has not escaped Sarah Boyack’s notice that we have lived through a period when Westminster has reduced our budget. That has implications for all parts of the public sector in Scotland, but we have taken steps to protect local government’s position in relative terms.
I can do no better than quote the speech of the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities at the recent COSLA conference. He said:
“Looking forward, between 2013 and 2016, the revenue support and resources available in Scotland for the rest of the public sector, excluding Health, will increase by 0.2%. Over the same period, local government revenue funding will increase by 0.7%. This demonstrates that our success is not simply in the past but also with regard to the future”.
We have a good relationship with COSLA. It can be difficult at times, but it stems from our joint commitment to doing whatever we can to protect local government’s position and the services on which many people across Scotland depend.
I call Murdo Fraser for question 6—as briefly as possible.
Police Scotland (Public Accountability)
6. To ask the Deputy First Minister whether Police Scotland has been subject to sufficient public accountability in its first year of operation. (S4F-02016)
At a national level, the Scottish Police Authority is responsible for holding the chief constable to account. It meets regularly and holds its board and committee meetings in public.
At a local level, a direct relationship exists between each local authority and the Police Service of Scotland. There are now 360 councillors across Scotland who scrutinise policing—some in each of our 32 local authorities—which differs from the position before 1 April last year. For the first time, the Parliament also has a direct role in holding the service to account.
In its first year of operation, the new centralised police force has closed local control rooms, removed traffic wardens without proper consultation, closed 60 public counters across the country and reduced community policing. What assurances can the Deputy First Minister give us that, in its second year of operation, Police Scotland will be more accountable to the communities that it serves and will engage properly with local people, rather than dictate from the centre?
Murdo Fraser slightly misrepresents the position. Police Scotland is ensuring that its resources are focused on protecting the Scottish public. That is why we have been able to protect the commitment that we made to having an additional 1,000 police officers across Scotland.
There are 214 more local councillors engaged in scrutinising the Police Service now than there were before 1 April last year. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We live in a Scotland that is safer—crime is down, violent crime is down and the fear of crime is down. To be frank, that is down to the good work of police officers in every corner of the country. It is time that the whole Parliament got behind them and said thank you to them for the job that they do.