Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01873)
Later today, I will be doing one or two wee things to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
That is such a relief to me, because we know that one person’s wee things are another person’s ridiculous frippery.
On Tuesday, in what the Financial Times described as the highest-profile intervention yet from business, the chief executive of BP, Bob Dudley, said that he was against Scotland leaving the United Kingdom. He said that there is too much uncertainty, including about what currency an independent Scotland would use. In response, the First Minister told BBC Scotland that,
“of course, there are many, many chief executives who are firmly in favour of Scottish independence.”
Will the First Minister name the “many, many chief executives” of oil companies such as BP who are in favour of Scottish independence?
There are hundreds of people in Business for Scotland, who are Scottish businesses arguing for the welfare and benefit to the people of Scotland that would come from independence. The most important thing that Bob Dudley said was that the investment plans of BP—which were announced very recently, just in the past two years—would continue. That is absolutely right, because they are made on an economic basis. BP recognises that just as, over the past 40 years, it has been extremely business sensible and lucrative for it to invest in the North Sea, so that will be the case over the next 40 years.
We should look at the investment decisions that are being made and the “sparkling performance”—to quote Ernst & Young—of inward investment in Scotland. The substantial investment decisions that are being made in Scotland are what indicate confidence in Scotland’s future and are what Johann Lamont should recognise as not wee things, but very substantial things indeed.
The First Minister has got a problem with the big things, such as answering the question that he was asked. Not for the first time, the First Minister is deciding for people what they are saying. He tells the rest of the United Kingdom what is in its interests in relation to currency; he tells Europe what it thinks about what might happen to Scotland in the future; and now he is telling Bob Dudley what he thinks the future is for his company. The First Minister should listen to what Bob Dudley said, rather than assert what he said.
BP has invested £35 billion in the North Sea and is planning to invest another £10 billion by 2017. BP’s North Sea investment employs 4,000 people, and to date it has extracted more than 5 billion barrels of oil and gas. I suggest that we listen to what Bob Dudley says.
The First Minister said that “many, many chief executives” back Scottish independence. I ask again: will the First Minister name the “many, many chief executives” of companies that are comparable to BP who back independence?
As I said, Business for Scotland has hundreds of members, who are people arguing for independence for Scotland.
Johann Lamont accuses me of putting words in Bob Dudley’s mouth, so I shall quote him exactly from the Daily Express of 5 February. Talking about projects including the Greater Clair exploration scheme, he said:
“They’ll keep production ... going past 2050”.
I quote him exactly in pointing out the substantial investments that BP and other companies are making in the waters around Scotland at present.
It was not always like that—I have a range of quotes here—because investment dried up in the period under Labour Government because of the constant tax changes, and that is not to mention the 2011 Alexander-Osborne swipe at the industry, which also dried up investment. That is why production has been declining over the past few years. However, thanks to the investment that is going in, Oil & Gas UK forecasts that production could reach 2 million barrels a day by the end of the decade, up from 1.5 million barrels a day in 2013. The investment talks.
What Bob Dudley says is important, but I have been looking at what another Bob, Bob Holman, has said in The Herald today—[Interruption.] Well, he is Keir Hardie’s biographer and therefore he should be listened to with respect. He said:
“I am a member of the Labour Party, which is against Scottish independence, but I will be voting Yes in September. My decision is not because I have strong nationalistic feelings, but because I believe in democracy and equality.”
Perhaps Johann Lamont should also listen to the many Labour Party members who have been declaring for yes, such as Alex Mosson, Charles Gray, Mary Lockhart and John Mulvey; she should look at the reasons why they are declaring for yes, then perhaps even she will decide to see the arguments for justice, equality, prosperity and investment in an independent Scotland.
Sorry, but I was only taking the First Minister at his word when he said that
“there are many, many chief executives”
who support independence. As he said it, I presumed that he would be able to give us at least one name, rather than all that displacement activity.
On Tuesday, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s, Justin King, said of Scotland:
“Once it is a separate country, we and other retailers will take a view of what the cost structure is, and of course the revenue structure too. If you were to strike that today, there is no doubt Scotland is a more costly country in which to run a grocery retail business.”
Sainsbury’s says that independence has negative consequences, and so do Asda and Morrisons. Together, they employ—[Interruption.] It might not matter to SNP members, but it matters to shop workers the length and breadth of this country. The chief executives of BP, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Morrisons have all warned about the consequence of independence. The First Minister says that
“there are many, many chief executives”
who are in favour of his plan. Again, I ask him to name the “many, many chief executives” of businesses that are comparable to BP and the supermarkets who actually back him.
The supermarket argument fell flat when it was run the first time in December and it falls flat again. It is not shop workers whom Johann Lamont is quoting—[Interruption.]
Order.
That is the point of the argument about what is important to Scotland. In today’s Daily Record, Margaret Curran said:
“we need to stop talking like the political elite”.
Johann Lamont has talked about nothing else but the political elite in this question. Margaret Curran says:
“I could talk until the cows come home about currency unions ... But if you are sitting home at night watching television, that is not the language you talk in.”
That is the exact point. Let us talk the language of people. Let us talk about jobs and investment—[Interruption.]
Order.
Let us talk about the transformation of childcare, about the bedroom tax and about what this Parliament has achieved. Do not cite the elite; cite the people of Scotland, who are rallying to independence. [Applause.]
Order.
It is obvious that the First Minister’s special advisers have been on double time trying to find him words to put in a space so that he does not have to answer the question. It is precisely because we are concerned about the consequences for ordinary people that we challenge the First Minister on his obsession of the past 40 years. Is it not the case that rule number 1 in Alex Salmond’s book of communication is to assert something that is untrue and keep on repeating it often enough in the hope that people will believe it to be true, even when it is not?
The First Minister cannot explain what the currency would be in an independent Scotland, but every major supermarket—not the elite—says that the price of groceries would go up, and the chief executive of one of our biggest oil companies has recommended that Scots should reject separation. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland says that he has failed to answer basic questions on pensions.
The First Minister’s response is to stick his fingers in his ears and carry on regardless. At what point does the First Minister acknowledge that the chief executive of BP, our supermarkets and ICAS might know what they are talking about? At what point will he accept that leaving the United Kingdom will be bad for the people of Scotland?
Let us deal with the oil industry. When commenting on the white paper, Malcolm Webb, the chief executive of Oil & Gas UK, which represents the whole industry, said:
“We are particularly encouraged with commitments to encourage exploration and measures to maximise the economic recovery of the oil and gas reserves. We also welcome reassurances on future decommissioning relief and the commitment to consult on future fiscal changes.”
In terms of Johann Lamont—[Interruption.] I am quoting about things that matter. Investment dried up during the Labour Government because of taxation changes and it dried up during 2011 after the dawn raid from Osborne and Danny Alexander. Now, investment is surging in the North Sea and the waters around Scotland; investment will take place and production will therefore increase.
Our advisers did not have to work into the wee small hours to find the quotations that I used; they came from pages 8 and 9 of the Daily Record this very morning and say exactly what Johann Lamont will not admit. This is Margaret Curran, Johann Lamont’s friend and ally. I am not talking about the Labour MPs who will not turn up at the conference because they do not like Johann Lamont’s policies; I am talking about her friend and ally Margaret Curran, who said:
“we need to stop talking like the political elite and start talking about the issues that really matter to people in the street”—
the wee things, the things that really matter. She said:
“I could talk until the cows come home about currency unions ... But if you are sitting home at night watching television, that is not the language you talk in.”
Will Johann Lamont take advice from Margaret Curran, if she will not take advice from me?
On what the Government is doing in relation to chief executives, the Financial Times this very morning reports on a senior defence executive’s comments on the use of the dark arts, saying that the Government—that is the UK Government—[Interruption.] Well, I am just quoting the Financial Times, which I am sure that Johann Lamont reads every morning, because of her friendship with all those chief executives, and which reports that the UK Government’s putting
“pressure on companies to speak out against independence suggests ... anxiety about”
the opinion polls and the referendum result.
That is what is happening at the moment, and that is exactly why the wee things, like jobs, investment, the bedroom tax and transformational childcare, will carry the day in September.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01869)
I have no plans, but there is a very good chance of meeting the Prime Minister on 24 February in Aberdeen. If reports are accurate, he and his ministers will be in Dyce on the same day as the Scottish Government Cabinet will be in Portlethen, just 10 miles away. I know that the STV studios in Aberdeen are free that evening. Surely that is the evening when, instead of the Prime Minister talking down to Scotland from the seat of power in London, the debate can take place that people in Scotland want to see.
Not waving but drowning, and sounding increasingly desperate. I can see why the First Minister wants to throw the chaff out there—[Interruption.]
Order.
Today’s Justice Committee report makes clear that
“the case has not been made for abolishing the general requirement for corroboration”,
and asks the Government to look again at that hugely controversial proposal. That is a significant and rare intervention. Will the First Minister give his response?
The response is from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who has asked Lord Bonomy to look at the safeguards in the matter. Lord Bonomy’s credentials in these things surely cannot be disputed; he is a human rights judge and practitioner over many years and is hugely respected. It is right and proper that the justice secretary has asked someone of such distinction to review the legislation and make clear that, in removing the general rule of corroboration, there is not the risk of miscarriage of justice.
I ask Ruth Davidson to reflect on this. We know that there are miscarriages of justice in Scotland at the moment, and those miscarriages of justice are the hundreds—some people argue that there are thousands—of cases that cannot come to court, in which the victims do not get their day in court and do not get access to justice because, instead of deciding on the sufficiency of evidence, which is the general principle in law across many jurisdictions, we have, uniquely, a general rule of corroboration, which makes it impossible to take some cases, in particular sexual cases and domestic violence cases, to court. If Lord Bonomy’s review can, with appropriate parliamentary safeguards, identify a route forward, surely that is something that, because of our concern for victims, the whole Parliament could find its way to support.
I do not doubt the Government’s concern for victims. Every party in the Parliament is concerned about victims, but victims of crime are best served by secure and sound convictions. Removing the requirement for corroboration will change permanently a criminal justice system that has served this country for centuries. It should not be considered lightly. The Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and two former heads of the judiciary all say that the plan is wrong.
We are now talking about the integrity of this Parliament. Members are being asked to vote through a bill that we know to be deeply flawed on the ground that Kenny MacAskill has said that he will sort it later. There is an obvious solution. We should leave the scrapping of corroboration out of the bill, ask Lord Bonomy to report on the whole issue and then look at it again. Surely it is better to make good law later than bad law now.
After Lord Bonomy makes his findings, the proposal will come back to committee, to consultation, and then to Parliament, so it is impossible to argue that the integrity of Parliament is being jeopardised by something that requires committee and parliamentary support. That is the safeguard.
Ruth Davidson should take a very close look at what the Lord President said this morning:
“I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for his sensitive response to the widespread discussion of this proposal, and for his usual courtesy in letting me see the terms of reference before they were finalised. The proposed review will enable this issue to be looked at at greater length by a body of experienced professionals. The terms of reference should allow a thorough consideration of the issues.”
If the Lord President can welcome Lord Bonomy’s review, the Parliament should welcome it, with the parliamentary safeguards.
When the issue was raised, I think by Willie Rennie, a few weeks ago, I referred to a case and I think that some in the press corps were confused about it, so I want to make it exactly clear. The case is that of Lee Cyrus, in which a trial could not be brought in Scotland because of the lack of corroboration. Ruth Davidson’s colleague Murdo Fraser appeared on STV news on 13 December, and this is what he said:
“I am very concerned that we are not seeing criminal proceedings in Scotland against this individual. I think this is an issue that the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, needs to be looking at to see why that is the case, and why his victims here in Scotland are not getting justice.”
The reason why the victims in Scotland were not getting justice was the general rule of corroboration. The Solicitor General for Scotland’s letter to Annabelle Ewing of 31 December said that there was no prosecution because of a lack of corroboration.
That case and, more importantly, hundreds and perhaps thousands of others cannot be brought to court, not because of the insufficiency of evidence but because of a general rule that is unprecedented in any other legal system. That is why this change is right and proper, with the appropriate parliamentary safeguards. I could say to Ruth Davidson that it is right and proper to question that, but it is not right and proper for one member of her party to demand from the justice secretary an explanation of why a case cannot get to court, and then, when he finds out that it is through lack of corroboration, not to have the integrity to come to the Parliament and say that he now understands that. It is not acceptable to have a Tory representative on a committee who refuses to acknowledge the demands that her own party has made on STV.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01870)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
I heard what the First Minister said to Ruth Davidson on corroboration. To say that he needs someone as distinguished as Lord Bonomy to fix the problem simply shows how bad it has got. Appointing Lord Bonomy does not restore justice; it simply papers over the cracks with a veneer of respectability. Is it not better to work out the fix before you deliberately cause the problem? Lawmaking in reverse is a shoddy way to expect Scotland’s Parliament to act. Does the First Minister not see that?
I do not think that Willie Rennie is expressing the position fairly. The appointment of Lord Bonomy is, as the Lord President said today, a
“sensitive response to the widespread discussion of this proposal.”
I would have hoped that that at least could be welcomed across the Parliament. It is not a quick fix; a distinguished judge is looking to make absolutely certain that, as the change is made, appropriate safeguards are there to prevent miscarriage of justice. That is a substantial point. Any recommendations would, before implementation, have to come back to the committee for discussion and back to the Parliament for approval. By definition, this change cannot take place unless and until the Parliament is satisfied with the proposals that come forward.
Given that the justice secretary has been prepared to do that, does Willie Rennie not accept that there is a real problem? After his second question, I will come on to the people who have identified the real problem, who are asking for justice. Does he not accept that the way forward that the justice secretary has indicated is one about which reasonable people can say, “If we can protect against miscarriage of justice, surely we should allow these hundreds or thousands of people access to justice”?
What the First Minister is doing is asking Lord Bonomy to fit new locks to the stable door a year after the horse will have bolted. The First Minister gives soothing words in this chamber, but he knows that this is a complete shambles.
Three weeks ago, I warned the First Minister that his plans on corroboration were “crackers”. He said that they were
“exactly the right thing to do.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2014; c 26634.]
I said that the justice secretary was “cack-handed”. The First Minister said that he was “doing his best.” Since then, Kenny MacAskill rushed an unsigned letter to the Justice Committee just minutes before its report was finalised. Within minutes of the report’s publication, he rejected it.
The First Minister knows that this is a shambles and that it cannot go on. Will he now overrule the justice secretary before he causes serious damage?
There are two things to say. First, if Willie Rennie thinks that somebody of the distinction of Lord Bonomy accepts a remit in a matter of minutes and in a rush, he seriously underrates the distinction of the judge concerned and the seriousness with which he will discharge his responsibilities.
Secondly, I repeat, so that it is well understood, that nothing in this regard can happen unless it carries the support of the committee and eventually the Parliament. It will not be implemented unless and until that happens.
Let us hear the other side of the matter. A press release issued by Rape Crisis Scotland this morning states:
“Rape Crisis Scotland is extremely disappointed that the Justice Committee has been unable to back the removal of the requirement for corroboration.”
Let us listen to Mary-Ann Davidson, who waived her right to anonymity to point out to the committee in what I think was very reasonable language the impact of the general rule of corroboration, which made it impossible for a successful prosecution for her as a victim of a very serious crime. She pointed out that the impact of that is
“not something that victims are making up.”
We have a general rule that makes it impossible to bring many cases to court. I know that there are people on the Labour benches who believe that. It was in the Labour Party manifesto that this rule should be changed. Because many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people cannot get their cases brought to court because of this general rule, there is a feeling of serious injustice.
I say again that if Lord Bonomy can review and provide for safeguards to make sure that there is no danger of miscarriage of justice, surely the Parliament can in its heart find a way and means of allowing thousands of people to get access to justice, so that justice can be done and can be seen to be done.
Bedroom Tax (Extra Financial Assistance)
To ask the First Minister what representations the Scottish Government is making to the United Kingdom Government regarding its legal ability to provide extra financial assistance to those affected by the so-called bedroom tax. (S4F-01876)
I was going to say that there was general agreement throughout the chamber in yesterday’s debate—apart from the Conservative Party—that the proper mechanism to provide regular financial assistance directly to tenants who are affected by the bedroom tax is discretionary housing payments.
The Scottish Government has made a substantial number of representations to the United Kingdom Government on the matter, starting on 31 January 2012, when Keith Brown, as the responsible minister at that time, asked for an amendment to the bedroom tax to exempt people who could not downsize.
We then asked for exemptions for the most vulnerable people, after which, on 6 March 2013, Margaret Burgess asked for the bedroom tax to be scrapped. We then asked for DHP funding to be raised so that we could back it in Scotland. Now, of course, we are asking for the ceiling to be removed on discretionary housing payments, because it is the best mechanism to provide assistance to people in Scotland who are suffering from the bedroom tax, and so that those people get the help that they deserve.
This week has been a good week for Parliament because we have been addressing issues that are of great popular concern in Scotland. One of those issues is certainly the inequity and injustice of the bedroom tax.
Does the First Minister agree that it was no “wee thing” for the parties in this chamber to put aside their differences and to unite to approve the budget yesterday? However, the time has come for the UK Government and Iain Duncan Smith to do the right thing and to raise the cap on the level of discretionary housing payments in order to mitigate fully the impact of the obscene and hated bedroom tax on 80,000 people in Scotland. They must do it and to do it now.
There are two issues here. I absolutely agree with Jim Eadie that removal of the cap would be a simple thing to do. It would be done at no cost to Westminster and could be completed by 1 April. We await the answer from the Department for Work and Pensions.
We should also bear in mind the wise words of Carwyn Jones, whose Administration has taken a different route. He pointed out in the Welsh Assembly this very week that while the powers of a devolved assembly can be used to mitigate, there is a danger—as he put it—that policies that should be scrapped at UK level are being forced as extra costs on to Scotland and Wales. This Parliament cannot mitigate the full extent of the injustice of the welfare changes that are being visited on the people of Scotland, which is exactly why it should have control over these matters in order that we could implement social justice in this country.
Alcohol Misuse
To ask the First Minister what steps, beyond minimum pricing, the Scottish Government will take to tackle alcohol misuse. (S4F-01878)
We have an alcohol framework, which contains more than 40 actions to rebalance Scotland’s relationship with alcohol through legislative change, increased funding, and improved treatment and support services, and by building an environment that supports the cultural change that is necessary in the longer term.
We have invested record sums—£237 million since 2008—in tackling alcohol misuse. We also have £200 million targeted at treatment support services and prevention, including education and awareness campaigns.
Will the First Minister support the measures in Dr Richard Simpson’s proposed shifting the culture bill, which includes limiting the amount of caffeine that is allowed in premixed alcohol products? He will be aware of the McKinlay study on young offenders at HMP Polmont, which found that more than 43 per cent of those who could identify it consumed one particular brand of caffeinated alcohol—a brand that makes up less than 1 per cent of alcohol sales.
Does the First Minister also agree that bottle tagging would identify the people who are responsible for selling those products to people who are under the legal age for alcohol purchase?
I have already said to Richard Simpson that we will look carefully at all proposals, because this is a matter on which we in Parliament should act jointly.
On Rhoda Grant’s first point, there is much dispute about the basis of the research. On her second point, we are willing to take a good look at bottle tagging.
Rhoda Grant should accept that the substantial body of evidence demonstrates that affordability is a key driver in increased consumption, so addressing price is a crucial element of any credible long-term strategy. That is why this Government believes that a minimum price per unit of alcohol, as part of the wider package of measures that I have listed, would be the most effective way to tackle alcohol misuse in Scotland.
Child Poverty
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to reduce child poverty. (S4F-01875)
Progress is being made on child poverty. That progress was seen in a report that was published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation at the weekend, which shows that child poverty fell 10 percentage points in the 10 years to 2011-12. That is about twice the decrease that has taken place in England.
However, no one in the chamber can ignore the stark warning from the Child Poverty Action Group that, as a result of welfare cuts, it is possible that by 2020, an additional 100,000 children will be in families that are forced back into poverty, which will reverse in substantial part the improvements that have been made over the past 10 years.
I welcome the First Minister’s answer. Can he tell me how independence would provide further opportunities to address child poverty? [Interruption.]
I would have thought that such opportunities would be pretty obvious—even to members on the Labour benches.
When the Child Poverty Action Group says that the welfare changes that will affect families throughout Scotland may put 100,000 children back into poverty, even Labour members might acknowledge that having control of such things in Scotland would be a tremendous asset and would help to prevent that circumstance. Only when Scotland’s future is in Scotland’s hands and Parliament has the full powers of independence will we truly be able to tackle child poverty and ensure that the “wee things” and the big things in Scotland are put to rights.
How about tackling child poverty now? Children in 22 of the poorest primary schools in Dundee are having their early years practitioners removed, which is being done in order to meet the 600 hours childcare commitment. Parliament will agree to provide more money for that commitment. Will the First Minister meet the leader of Dundee City Council to ensure that that childcare commitment will not come at the detriment of support for reading and writing in primary 1?
Jenny Marra asks us to tackle child poverty now. The percentage of children who were in poverty before housing costs was 21 per cent when we came to office. That percentage has dropped to 15 per cent, which is substantially due to the measures that this Government has taken. How exactly does Jenny Marra suggest we tackle child poverty now? Every serious child poverty organisation pinpoints the social security cuts and changes as the threats, when it comes to child poverty in Scotland. Jackie Baillie wants the powers over such things to be kept at Westminster, but can Jenny Marra have the courage to say that they should be controlled in Scotland by this Parliament?
That ends First Minister’s questions. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Food Banks