Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2373)
Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
The centrepiece of the Government’s programme for Scotland is the First Minister’s draft referendum bill. How is it going? How many responses has he received to his consultation?
There have been 200 new responses to the consultation, which have—as they were asked to do—given us valuable insight and information on how the bill should develop. Therefore, I am hopeful that members will see the sense and logic of allowing the Scottish people to have a say in their own constitutional future. I certainly hope that the unholy alliance that has been developing between the Labour and Conservative parties, whereby in 74 per cent of the votes in this Parliament, Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie have been joined at the hip—metaphorically, of course—does not conspire to prevent the people of Scotland from having a say in their own constitutional future.
The thing is that the people have had their say on the issue over a long time. The latest consultation is the second consultation on the third draft of a four-part referendum question that no one understands or—it appears—cares very much about. I have here all the previous consultations.
The Government’s flagship policy is running out of steam. The consultation on it has received 200 responses, while the consultation on the cycling action plan, important as it is, received more responses. The truth is that no one is listening to Alex Salmond any more. Even his Braveheart bedroom bloggers can’t be bothered responding to the latest referendum consultation. Exactly how much is this Alex Salmond vanity project costing the Scottish taxpayer?
It was not the Braveheart bloggers who managed to generate 600,000 hits on the national conversation website and to do 11,000 downloads of “Your Scotland, Your Voice”. Given how badly researched the Labour Party in this Parliament is, we can safely assume that it did not manage to do one of those downloads.
I believe that the argument for a referendum is soundly based on the democratic instincts and constitutional traditions of Scotland. We now have information that Labour supports a referendum in Wales on Wales’s constitutional future, and the Prime Minister has produced a rabbit from the hat and said that he wants a referendum on alternative voting—an electoral system that, as far as I am aware, no one officially supports. Given that referendums are good enough in England and Wales, why on earth does the Labour Party oppose the right of the people of Scotland to have a say in their own future?
If 600,000 people responded two years ago and there are 200 responses now, I think that that shows that people are losing interest.
I asked about the cost. Nicola Sturgeon told us in 2007 that the cost of this one-sided conversation would be £48,000. I thought that that was quite a lot of money, but three years later it is costing 40 times that amount: £2 million, including £750,000 on civil service wages alone. If Alex Salmond gets his referendum, that will be another £10 million that he intends to spend. When will the First Minister start thinking about what matters to Scotland instead of what matters to him?
Iain Gray is right: the cost of a referendum, whether it was on alternative voting or the equivalent of the referendum in Wales, would be £10 million in Scotland. That is an interesting figure: it is the annual cost of the Scotland Office. One of the great virtues of having a positive result in the referendum would be that we would be able to get rid of that cost not for one year, but for ever. That would be an enormous blow to the Labour Party but to no one else. No one else I know thinks that the Scotland Office is worth £1, let alone £10 million.
Alex Salmond’s problem is that although there is a real national conversation going on in Scotland right now, he is just not part of it. He must be the only person in Britain who thinks that the general election is about how many times he can get on television. In the election, the real national conversation is between Labour values—jobs, protecting tax credits for families, raising the minimum wage, and protecting schools, hospitals and the police—and Tory values, which are about cutting their way back into recession and tax cuts for the ultra-rich.
Let me tell members one thing that the national conversation is not about: it is not about a referendum that no one wants, with a question that no one understands, about a separation that no one believes in. The £12 million could be used to start investing in construction jobs or to re-employ the teachers that Alex Salmond has sacked and the classroom assistants that he has cut. Will the First Minister dump this expensive and pointless bill now?
There are many arguments for self-determination for Scotland, but I think that they have been coming to a head in this election campaign. Iain Gray will be familiar with the claims of David McLetchie, who was asked to answer for how the Tories would justify their right to run Scotland even if they won no seats here in tomorrow’s election. His answer was clear: he would incorporate Labour Party votes and Liberal party votes and assimilate them into the Tory total, just as Margaret Thatcher did in the 1980s. The sad thing is that the Labour Party had no answer to it then and has no absolutely no answer to it now.
I cannot think of anyone who knows more about true Labour Party values in Scotland than Dennis Canavan, the former MSP. I have here Dennis’s leaflet, which endorses the Scottish National Party in Falkirk.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2374)
I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.
The chief executive of the Outward Bound Trust, Nick Barrett, supports a national citizen service as proposed by the Conservatives: “It’s a great idea,” he says. Stacey Adams, who is the chief executive of Raleigh International Trust, also supports it, saying that she
“would be happy to endorse the roll out of the NCS policy to Scotland.”
Why, then, is the First Minister opposed to giving 16-year-olds in Scotland a chance to take part in this exciting new idea that has received such significant backing? If there is a Conservative Government in Westminster after Thursday—which I very much hope there will be—why will 16-year-olds in England and Wales get opportunities that 16-year-olds in Scotland will be denied by this SNP Government?
I make it clear that we are open to good ideas from wherever in the chamber they come, and we always will be. That is part of the art of minority government and why consensus has been reached on so many vital issues for Scotland. However, we want to know from the Conservative Party where the money would come from to fund the new scheme. I am sure that Annabel Goldie would not want to place the Government and Parliament in the position of having to cut funding from the thousands of volunteer places that are supported around Scotland at the moment. If Annabel Goldie can use her influence to persuade George Osborne or David Cameron to answer the simple question that they have been asked over the past four weeks about whether they intend to tear up the current funding arrangements for Scotland without the consent or agreement of the Scottish Government or the Scottish people, perhaps we will get nearer to finding out whether, over and above all the other cuts that they plan in public services, there is a special Tory cut—a Cameron cut—aimed at the people of Scotland.
Perhaps surprisingly, I am encouraged by the first part of the First Minister’s response because he has not ruled out a very good idea, although less than a month ago he snubbed it completely. That shows that the power of Conservative argument can prevail.
I turn to the admittedly important issue of funding. The fact is that the First Minister and his Government have a perverse sense of priorities. Why does he think that it is better to spend £57 million a year on the provision of universal free prescriptions for people such as himself, who earn £150,000 a year? He is awash with money, including the resettlement allowance of £65,000 that he proposes to take, which is granted to people who give up politics, even though he apparently has no intention of doing any such thing. More is the pity. Even a fraction of the £57 million that is being used to provide universal free prescriptions would make a world of difference to the Scottish youngsters who would benefit from the scheme. Is the First Minister the only person who cannot see that?
Two things more than any others typify the traditional Conservative arguments in Scotland, which have been rejected so many times by the Scottish people. The first is anything that suggests—as Annabel Goldie just has—that the Conservatives are not committed to a national health service that is free at the point of need. It is not a great idea to put people who have chronic illnesses in the position of having to pay for prescriptions that they cannot afford in order that they can get the medicines that they require. The Tory party, which has taken generations to live down the attack that it does not trust or invest in the national health service, should be careful before it tries to make people pay for prescriptions by reversing the sensible policy of Nicola Sturgeon.
The other Conservative proposal that typifies conservatism in the current campaign, is that a few thousand people should, at a time when public spending is under extreme pressure, be given the benefit of millions of pounds through the inheritance tax cut. Those two policies alone will ensure that Annabel Goldie’s party goes downwards, not upwards, in the ballot tomorrow. The fact that the Conservatives are not prepared to answer about the specific Cameron cut that is aimed at Scotland will be the death knell of the Conservative party in Scotland.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2375)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Tomorrow, people will have the chance to vote for something different—to vote for real change with the Liberal Democrats. Whatever people decide, the Scottish Parliament must tackle the country’s financial position responsibly. Last week, the SNP’s London leader read out the usual SNP list of cuts but said that it was only a start.
“This is where we want to start”,
he said. He went on:
“Beyond that, there have to be savings: of course, there have to be savings.”
Last Thursday, the First Minister duly announced a programme of 2 per cent efficiency savings each year for the next three years. How will he ensure that the impact of his Government’s savings will be fair?
As Tavish Scott should know, the SNP Government has been pursuing a 2 per cent efficiency savings programme—proofed, unlike the one south of the border—and has ensured its successful implementation, thanks to the excellent work of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney. It is entirely reasonable that we continue such a programme, responding to the public sector challenge that will be presented to us by any one of the three London-based parties.
In fairness, Tavish Scott should have pointed to the other two aspects of the forward-looking programme that was presented by Angus Robertson and me. Tavish Scott briefly mentioned the second aspect, which is that we do not think that it is a good idea, at a time of stringency, to waste £100 billion on a Trident nuclear missile system. We also think that it is wrong to waste money on the remnants of the identity card system and nuclear dumps. We think it is wrong to waste £10 million on the Scotland Office, and we think that it is wrong to waste £100 million on the House of Lords. The choice of priorities will be one of the key decisions that is made by the Scottish people tomorrow.
The third aspect of the programme is how we invest in the economy to get Scotland back to work and raise the rate of growth in Scotland through financial autonomy. Tavish Scott will have noticed in The Herald today that Scotland’s leading businessman has now declared himself to be firmly in favour of that growth strategy for the future, through fiscal autonomy and getting people back to work in Scotland.
I am grateful to the First Minister for confirming that those are his plans. It was his announcement last Thursday; it is his Government. There will be 2 per cent cuts, then 4 per cent, then 6 per cent in the next three years, if the SNP has its way. That will take £3.5 billion out of Scottish public services, schools and hospitals. If anyone else proposed that, the First Minister would accuse them of living in London, but this Salmond slice is home grown. I want to know when the First Minister intends to publish the details. His economics paper last week included the admission that these were “back of the envelope”
calculations. We applaud his candour, but can he assure us that the £3.5 billion Salmond slice is written on something rather more convincing? When will we get the details?
Is Tavish Scott now the only person who is unaware that the Liberal Democrats, in common with the Tories and the Labour Party, are planning substantial cuts to public spending across the spending departments of the UK, with spending cuts of £25 billion in Scotland? Is he the only person who is unaware that the Institute of Fiscal Studies says that the Liberal Democrats are concealing 75 per cent of their cuts programme? When we have a proofed efficiency savings programme, as pursued by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, Tavish Scott should be celebrating the honesty of this Government as opposed to the concealment of the Liberal Democrats.
I can say that some Liberal Democrats are aware of the consequences of the Liberal Democrat programme. On Monday, in Aberdeen, Vince Cable said that, as chancellor, he would be
“the most hated man in the country”.
I suppose that that might be a case of going from St Vince to Stalin with no intervening period whatsoever.
Public Finances
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has studied the report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies on the United Kingdom’s projected public finances and its impact on the case for Scotland becoming responsible for all taxation and spending in Scotland. (S3F-2383)
As I have just mentioned, the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ report simply confirms the findings of the Scottish Government’s analysis of the full scale of the savage cuts that the three London parties are determined to bring to Scotland.
The Scottish Government’s analysis shows that, under current plans, we could see real-terms cuts of between £22 billion and £35 billion in Scottish public spending over the next 15 years if any of the three London parties has its way.
In fairness to the Liberal Democrats, I should point out that, although the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirms that the Liberal Democrats concealed 75 per cent of their planned cuts during the election campaign, it also says that the Labour Party has been concealing 87 per cent of its cuts and the Tories have been concealing 83 per cent of their cuts. That is why I heard a Liberal Democrat spokesman on the radio claiming that they were the honest party because they were concealing only 75 per cent of their possible cuts.
I thank the First Minister for that answer. The IFS report reveals that the three London-based parties are all alike in their determination to cut public services. The only difference between them is exactly how tough and how deep those cuts will be.
Does the First Minister agree that rather than punishing ordinary people by cutting services, a far better approach would be to cut the deficit by stimulating and growing the economy, an approach that has been recognised as the best option by many other nations in Europe and worldwide?
I agree; that has been recognised by many nations worldwide who have the advantage of controlling their own taxation systems and revenue bases. It is not just other nations that recognise that. I mentioned earlier that Scotland’s leading businessperson acknowledged that in The Herald today. Let us have a look at Jim McColl’s comment:
“We need to have a financially responsible Parliament in Scotland, with politicians taking the full responsibility for raising the money that it spends.”
Scotland’s recovery lies in the arguments for fiscal autonomy.
Does the First Minister acknowledge that the real cuts that are taking place under his Government, which has an ever increasing budget, are those of the 2,500 teachers and the 1,000 classroom assistants who have lost their jobs? The cuts agenda is made here in Scotland by the First Minister. Does he agree with the Institute of Fiscal Studies report that says unequivocally that the package of measures that Labour seeks to introduce is the most progressive and least regressive, and that its impact on hard-working Scottish families makes it the most attractive package available in what are very difficult circumstances, which the SNP has completely failed to address in any way whatsoever?
I am sure that the people of Scotland are taking careful note; we do not have to worry about Labour’s cuts because they are “progressive” cuts. Andy Kerr denied that Scotland’s budget was being cut by £500 million. Andy Kerr claimed, when economics institutes put forward the view that substantial cuts were coming, that they could not be forecast. Now that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has put the nail in Labour’s coffin as it tries to conceal cuts, Andy Kerr says that we do not have to worry because they will be progressive cuts. Little wonder that Dennis Canavan is endorsing a Scottish National Party candidate.
Scottish Futures Trust
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that the Scottish Futures Trust’s spending of around £1 million on senior staff salaries and £400,000 on consultants represents good value for taxpayers’ money. (S3F-2379)
The Scottish Futures Trust is extremely good value for taxpayers’ money. It is exactly the response that is needed to Labour’s and the Conservative’s costly private finance initiative experiment. Annual payments from PFI are scheduled to reach £1 billion over the next few years, a legacy that will continue to grow despite the significant funding cuts proposed by the London parties.
The SFT, in contrast, is delivering real value. For every pound spent there will be a minimum of £7 in public benefit. That commitment is being rolled out across Scotland, with 16 key projects attracting a total of £7 billion of investment.
I would like to thank the First Minister for his gracious, accurate and self-effacing response but, as you know, Presiding Officer, I would never deliberately mislead the chamber. The First Minister should know that the majority of capital projects delivered by Labour employed traditional procurement methods, not that that prevents Mr Salmond turning up here, there and everywhere to cut the ribbon and take the credit for those projects. The truth is that, despite Mr Salmond’s bluff and bluster, the Scottish Futures Trust is still fleecing and failing taxpayers. The SFT has failed to deliver a single hospital, classroom, transport project or school.
When will the First Minister admit to himself what the people of Scotland already know, that the SFT is about hospitality not hospitals, consultants not classrooms and fiction not fact?
If I remember correctly, there was a time when Bill Butler was a critic of PFI—and so he should have been, if we consider one PFI project that he now seems to be supporting. The capital value of Hairmyres hospital in Lanarkshire was £60 million compared with the total unitary charge of £725 million that we will all have to pay in future. Shame on Bill Butler for now saying or implying that he supports PFI and its costly experiment, which will be a factor in Scottish budgets for years and years to come.
There is a point to be made here. In the record 260 schools that have now been completed and refurbished by this Government—[Interruption.]
Order. The point has been made.
It is a record that far exceeds that of any other Administration. Thanks to the work of this Government, more than half of those schools are not the result of PFI, public-private partnerships, traditional procurement or not-for-profit trusts
. There has already been a change of emphasis that will be welcomed across Scotland by people who are fed up with paying through the nose for Labour’s PFI.
National Health Service Funding
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government is satisfied that national health service boards can sustain service provision based on the funding allocation received in this year’s budget. (S3F-2376)
Despite a cut in the Scottish budget, the NHS has received an increase in funding and we are doing all that we can to protect front-line services. NHS boards received an overall increase of 2.7 per cent in their initial allocations for 2010-11. Funding available to the boards is, of course, supplemented by the efficient government savings that are retained locally for reinvestment in front-line services. The combination of increases and local retention of savings will ensure that these priorities are safeguarded.
With regard to assisting health services that are under threat due to growing demands, will the First Minister join me—for the first time—in welcoming the commitment made by the Conservatives not to make any in-year adjustments to this year’s Scottish budget and to maintain spending on the NHS down south in future years, which will enable the Scottish Government to do exactly the same here if the First Minister shares our commitments and priorities? Will he confirm that his Government will sustain spending on the NHS in Scotland?
I have already done that. I cannot welcome points about next year’s budget with the same enthusiasm shown by Mary Scanlon, given the Conservatives’ position that cuts will have to implemented twice in the budget the year after. If Mary Scanlon could assist Annabel Goldie in getting a simple reply to the question whether the Conservative party wants to tear up the current funding formula without reference to the Scottish Government or the agreement of the Scottish people, I would be very much in her debt. That simple question is about the nature of the Conservative party’s intentions towards Scotland. Is it genuinely concerned for Scottish public services or has it reverted to its anti-Scottish mode?
As the Government has a record of interfering in local health board decisions, will the First Minister ensure that Lanarkshire’s out-of-hours service, which is currently under threat, is protected? Will he urge the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to intervene in the matter?
Health boards implement policy. The member knows our record of protecting out-of-hours services and our commitment to the national health service in Lanarkshire and elsewhere.
Is the First Minister aware that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is planning to substitute almost 400 registered nurses with half the number of nursing assistants? The plan appears to be to cut numbers in half and then diminish the skill mix, showing complete disregard for nationally agreed workforce planning tools and, more serious, potentially compromising patient safety. Does the First Minister agree with that?
Patient safety comes first and the board is finding the appropriate skill mix in consultation with the unions. I would have thought that, in the face of the £500 million cuts in the Scottish budget, Jackie Baillie would have welcomed the fact that, thanks to the strength and resolve of Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney, the national health service in Scotland has received such an increase this year. Everyone in Scotland now knows what the Labour Party plans for the future, and the credibility of Jackie Baillie and her Labour Party colleagues asking for public spending increases in Scotland has been fatally undermined by their own Chancellor of the Exchequer’s threat of cuts that are deeper and tougher than those of Margaret Thatcher.
That concludes questions to the First Minister.