First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01437)
Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Is Aberdeen Donside the only place in Scotland that will not benefit from independence? Is that why neither the First Minister nor his candidate are mentioning the I-word there?
The Labour Party fought a by-election in Glasgow North East under the campaign issue that the Scottish National Party was neglecting Glasgow and giving lots of money to Aberdeen, but it is now fighting desperately to defend its appalling track record in the administration of Aberdeen City Council by suggesting that the SNP is giving money to Glasgow but not to Aberdeen. If only the internet had not been invented, this Labour campaign might have been successful.
Yes—but the First Minister is not talking about independence when he is in Aberdeen, although he spends all his life talking about it everywhere else. Is not it the case that the First Minister does not mention independence in Aberdeen because his case is falling apart? His economic advisers—with or without Nobel prizes—say that it is rubbish. Joe Stiglitz says that the First Minister’s corporation tax policy will not work and Jim and Margaret Cuthbert say that his idea of independence is not independence at all.
John Swinney is exiled for saying in private—
Hello!
Order.
Well, we live in hope—[Interruption.]
Order.
We live in hope that John Swinney will say in public what he has said to his Cabinet colleagues in private. If we remember, he said that an independent Scotland might not be able to afford the state pension—
Members: No!
He did say it. He did not say it to you, but he did say it. [Interruption.]
Order. Speak through the chair, please.
John Swinney said in public that the SNP cannot say what currency the state pension would be paid in if we had one. Is not it the case that, although independence is the First Minister’s passion, every time there is an election, it becomes the love that dares not speak its name?
First, I will introduce Johann Lamont to John Swinney. John Swinney, Johann Lamont. Johann Lamont, John Swinney.
It is a pleasure.
John Swinney is, apparently, not in exile—unlike the Labour candidate for Aberdeen Donside, who after his first television interview, when he suggested that he wants the right to increase the council tax in Aberdeen, which already has the highest council tax in Scotland, was exiled from television interviews, in case he repeated the gaffe.
The case for independence is articulated in terms of the economic progress and social justice that independence will bring to the people of Scotland. Unfortunately, the Labour Party—today of all days, and this week of all weeks—is in no position to talk about social justice, because it is tearing up its opposition to the Tory party’s welfare reforms, I presume so that Alistair Darling will feel more comfortable at the Tory conference this weekend. [Laughter.] Let us hear no more “something for nothing” rhetoric from Johann Lamont.
That went down well. [Laughter.] That was an astonishing response from a First Minister who is to the right of George Osborne in giving cuts to big business. [Interruption.]
Order. There is far too much noise in the chamber.
The last time I noticed, the First Minister was still saying that he would cut corporation tax by three points more than George Osborne, and he is the only person—he is unique in the whole United Kingdom—who, on the one hand, is offering tax cuts, but is saying that we will continue, on the other hand, to spend in the same way in public expenditure. That is simply not credible, and everyone knows it.
The First Minister’s campaign started with a day at the cinema. A year on, he is going to the zoo. In our hearts, all of us know that his campaign is going nowhere. Scotland has a lot of sympathy for the panda, Sweetie. We know what it is to reject the unwanted advances of a big beast with only one thing on its mind.
We also know that the Government has its priorities all wrong. That is why Mark McDonald asked more questions in Parliament about Japanese knotweed than about accident and emergency services in Aberdeen. Is not it the case that the Scottish National Party will not mention independence in Aberdeen because the yes campaign is not helping Alex Salmond to get his yes man back into Holyrood?
It is better to do the punchline at the end of the question rather than in the middle of it.
I want to read something to Johann Lamont.
“The worry is this is the top of a slippery slope towards US-type system of public services for the poor only ... The attack on pensioners’ allowances leaves a big question hovering over the future of the welfare state: is it for everyone, or just for the poor?”
That was Peter Hain, this week. He was not talking about the Tory Government; he was talking about the Labour Party’s change of policy.
In a week in which even former Cabinet ministers are openly doubting Labour’s commitment to the welfare state, and on a day on which, as we are told in The Times, Ed Miliband is going to repeat Johann Lamont’s rhetoric about a “something for nothing” society, I suppose that we should be proud that Johann Lamont is leading the Labour Party across the United Kingdom to the right.
The whole focus of the SNP programme is on a something-for-something society, to hold society together—on universal benefits; on the benefit to household incomes of the council tax freeze and free prescriptions; on the benefit to students of not having to pay tuition fees; of the benefit of free personal care; and of the benefit of free transport. Those are the policies that will win in Aberdeen and across Scotland.
That lecture would have been a little more credible if the First Minister was not the last man standing arguing for Reaganomics in this country. [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister talks about his fantastic spending programme. Tell it to the would-be college student who cannot get a place. Tell it to the care worker who has a 15-minute visit on task and go. Tell it to the pensioner who cannot use their bus pass because there is no bus at all.
The fact of the matter is that, bizarrely, on the doorsteps in Aberdeen, the First Minister does not talk about the obsession that brought him into politics. When he is here, he and his ministers tell us what they cannot do until they have independence, but when they face real people, such as the people of Aberdeen, they speak about anything other than independence.
Members: No.
Oh, yes. I think that SNP members will find that that is so, and that includes their own candidate. Is not that because the First Minister knows what the people of Scotland really think about his independence obsession? Perhaps the real reason why he went to see the pandas at Edinburgh zoo this week was to find out first hand from Sunshine how to deal with rejection.
On the question of the Labour Party’s commitment to Aberdeen, let me quote the Labour leader of Glasgow City Council, Gordon Matheson. He said of the SNP in the Evening Times of 13 December:
“They have given up on Glasgow and decided to concentrate the nation’s resources on ... Aberdeen for the SNP.”
That was the Labour leader of Glasgow City Council. I know that it is a big embarrassment to Johann Lamont for people in the north-east of Scotland to be aware of the campaign that the Labour Party fronted to try to stop additional cash for the city of Aberdeen. Of course it is an embarrassment to have a Labour candidate who wants to increase people’s council tax and—from the Labour Party’s perspective—of course the new dental hospital in Aberdeen, the new emergency care centre, the green energy centre and the oil and gas academy centred in the city are embarrassments, but they are benefits that the Scottish National Party has brought to that city.
For the Labour Party across Scotland, its moving on to Tory ground on welfare policy after three years of continually attacking it at Westminster, and following the example of the “something for nothing” rhetoric in this country in Parliament from Johann Lamont, is a huge embarrassment, as Peter Hain identified.
As far as students are concerned, we have a record number of students in higher education in Scotland. In England, there has been a collapse in student numbers because of the tuition fees policy south of the border—which Johann Lamont says is the obvious thing to introduce in Scotland.
When the excellent policies that are being pursued in Scotland and the things that are being imposed on us from Westminster are weighed in the balance, the people in Aberdeen and across Scotland will vote to mobilise this nation’s resources and the social justice that will come from an independent Scotland.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01434)
No plans in the near future.
Last week, I asked the First Minister whether he would establish a public inquiry into the unfolding baby ashes scandal. In response, he replied that if I wanted to
“make the case for why a national public inquiry would benefit the bereaved parents”
he would
“of course look at that.”—[Official Report, 30 May 2013; c 20505.]
This week, I wrote to him laying out that case. Parents are calling for a public inquiry and they are upset that they are not directly involved in Lord Bonomy’s review. Further, it has emerged this week that crematorium workers who were involved in the disposal of babies’ remains will not be called to give evidence. Lord Bonomy’s review will not give those who have suffered loss the answers that they need and deserve. Does the First Minister agree that, in those circumstances, the case for a public inquiry is now stronger than ever?
I received Ruth Davidson’s letter to me, which is dated 5 June, last night and I will give it due consideration, as she would expect.
From initially looking at her letter, I notice that Ruth Davidson has corrected her position from last week, when she suggested that parents are not represented on the Bonomy commission. In fact, the charities Sands and the Miscarriage Association are represented on the commission. Ruth Davidson will of course remember that it was a representative of Sands in Edinburgh who first brought the whole issue to light. I do not think that she can just dismiss those two important charities, which are represented along with other interests on the Bonomy commission.
The Bonomy commission has been established to take evidence, with that broad-based panel, so that we can get the situation across Scotland into order as quickly as possible. Lord Bonomy will report by the end of this year. It is about the future, best practice and the things that should be done so that, if necessary, we can have them in legislation to assure people that such activity and grief for parents will not happen again. That is really important.
On giving parents the answers to their concerns, that is of course what Elish Angiolini is doing in the independent inquiry in Edinburgh. Audits are taking place in the other places across Scotland that are affected. I have the most enormous confidence in Dame Elish Angiolini, who was formerly Scotland’s top law officer. There is no evidence whatsoever that her inquiry is being hindered in any possible way at present. When her inquiry is complete and when we have the proposals of the Bonomy commission, we will of course look to ensure that everything has been done correctly and that people have had their questions answered, as they are entitled.
I hope that, now that Ruth Davidson has that information, she will concede, first, that the Bonomy commission is indeed a broad-based commission and, secondly, that substantial efforts are being made to give parents answers, particularly in Edinburgh. I hope that she will also concede that the Bonomy commission has been charged with the responsibility of sorting out the position for the whole of Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for that answer, but he does not appreciate that neither the Bonomy commission nor Dame Elish’s investigation is looking at individual cases or from an historical perspective. The people who are involved and who are asking for answers want to find out what happened to the remains of their children. They understand the timeframe that is involved in a public inquiry and they are asking for one anyway, because they want answers on what happened to their children.
This is not a party political issue, and it is not the Scottish Conservatives’ wont to call for public inquiries lightly, but I know that the First Minister has listened to such calls previously. Under him, his Government has held four public inquiries, two of which are on-going—one into hospital-acquired infections and one into contaminated blood products. Therefore, I want to press the First Minister. There are issues that are not covered either by Lord Bonomy’s investigation or by Elish Angiolini’s investigation, which is looking primarily at Edinburgh.
On reflection, the First Minister must surely agree that this matter, which has caused so much distress to hundreds of families right across Scotland and not just in Edinburgh and the Lothians, should have the kind of investigation on a similar scale that we had under the public inquiries that he set up in the past.
I believe that we can have confidence in Elish Angiolini’s investigation in relation to Edinburgh and that it will indeed try to get parents the answers that they desire. The inquiry is under way. I have checked and found no evidence that it is being blocked in any way by a lack of information. We should have confidence that Elish Angiolini will conduct the inquiry as we know she can and in the way that she has demonstrated many times in Scottish public life.
On a point of detail, in her letter of last night Ruth Davidson expressed concern about whether parents in Aberdeen will have the opportunity to make submissions to Lord Bonomy’s review. I can confirm that they will do. The date that she believed was the date for finalising the audit in Aberdeen is actually the date for the council debate; it is intended that the audit be finalised by the end of this month, and Lord Bonomy’s commission will have the time and opportunity to take any submissions from parents in Aberdeen that come out of that audit. I hope that that gives Ruth Davidson some reassurance.
When Elish Angiolini has reported and the Bonomy commission has established for this Parliament the best practice that can quickly be introduced across Scotland, to assure us that this sort of thing shall not happen again, we will of course carefully weigh up whether outstanding matters require to be further investigated.
I think that the balance of interests for parents and for society is in allowing Elish Angiolini to get on with her work and the Bonomy commission to establish best practice for Scotland, and then in carefully and sensitively weighing up what is best to be done, given that information.
There is a regional question from Rhoda Grant.
The First Minister will be aware that a judicial review has ruled that the Scottish Government should not have stopped the Western Isles schools reorganisation. Will he reimburse the council for its lost savings and legal fees in pursuing the review, so that it can invest the money in the community?
I am not quite certain of where Rhoda Grant is going on this. The Scottish Government, in good faith, applied legislation because we were trying to establish that the correct procedures had been followed so that communities had, as is right and proper, the right to make submissions against school closures.
The judgment is as it is, and we are considering it in terms of, first, how to react, and secondly, whether improved legislation is needed, to get the balance of interests between the rights of councils that are looking to close schools and the rights of parents and others to object to closure and be given the proper reference for doing so. I am sure that Rhoda Grant wants parents to have those rights and that she will support legislation that ensures that they do. We will consider the judgment from the court and take appropriate action.
University Research Funding (Independence)
3. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on how an independent Scotland would maintain research funding for universities. (S4F-01440)
University funding is not exactly the Conservative Party’s strong suit today. In The Daily Telegraph only yesterday—I know that Murdo Fraser reads it every day; I must confess that the article was pointed out to me—there was an extraordinary piece that showed the financial pressure on universities in England as a result of the collapse in student numbers that has been caused by the Conservative Party’s policy on tuition fees.
In contrast, Scottish universities are in a strong financial position and Scotland has maintained a world-leading position on research quality. We have four universities in the top 200. We are committed to maintaining that research funding and excellence in an independent Scotland.
Of course, unlike Murdo Fraser’s colleagues south of the border, we have demonstrated our commitment to university research. Most recent, just two weeks ago we announced an additional £13.7 million for key, world-leading research.
We have 8.5 per cent of the United Kingdom population but our universities win 15 per cent of UK public and charitable research funding. A host of figures and bodies have expressed concern that the situation could be put at risk by independence, among them Professor David Bell of the University of Stirling, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and Professor Louise Richardson, principal of the University of St Andrews. Professor Richardson said:
“If we were cut off from national research councils, it would be catastrophic for this institution”.
Without guarantees from the First Minister about the future funding of research in our universities, surely our academics would be better to conclude that we are better together.
That is why I just pointed out that this Government is committed to university funding and to university research funding, unlike the Conservative Party south of the border. Incidentally, I have dozens of quotations from university principals south of the border saying what they think of the Westminster Government and its treatment of the universities.
As Murdo Fraser suggested, we contribute to research funding—incidentally, more research funding for the universities comes from the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. We contribute to the research funding from the various science councils.
Murdo Fraser seems to be giving a one-sided view of these matters—[Interruption.] Well, it is a one-sided view with the Conservatives and the Labour Party; I should say that it is a two-sided view in the better together campaign.
On 13 April in The Times, Professor Tim O’Shea, from one of the most successful universities—the University of Edinburgh—asked that very question. He said that there was no reason
“why any form of constitutional change should preclude participation in higher order research councils”,
which of course make research grants on the basis of merit, as they will continue to do, backed by the Scottish Government.
I would think that it would be virtually impossible for the Conservative Party to find a single university principal in the whole of England who would tell them that universities are being properly funded under the tutelage of the Conservative Party. Let me repeat: university finances, according to that prime source, The Daily Telegraph, are collapsing, and student numbers are in free fall as a result of the student fees policy.
I merely mention those things to warn the Labour Party that its association with this lot—the Conservatives—will cost it dear.
Does the First Minister agree that in an independent Scotland, Scotland’s universities would not only continue to be world class but no longer face the threat caused by Westminster’s damaging student visa policies—[Interruption.]
Order. We must hear the question.
—which have been described by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry as
“a huge challenge to universities socially and financially and to Scotland economically”?
I do agree with that, which is why I gave the assurance that I did. I agree with the university principals who say that English universities and, indeed, universities across Europe would kill for the funding settlement that this Government has given to Scotland’s universities.
Quite rightly, the member points to the evidence to the Education and Culture Committee from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, which drew attention to another Tory-Labour-Liberal threat to our university system—the student visa policy. The SCDI said that the biggest source of concern for research in Scotland is Westminster’s tightening of student visas and that the policy is
“a huge challenge to universities socially and financially and to Scotland economically.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 2 October 2012; c 1514.]
I agree with that. It is high time that the no campaign found someone who is prepared to speak up for the real interests of Scottish universities.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Royal Society of Chemistry have questioned whether universities in an independent Scotland will be able to access research council, charitable and European Union funding. Does the First Minister believe that those bodies are guilty of scaremongering?
No, but I certainly think that the constituency MSP Liam McArthur is, given his mention of EU research funding.
Incidentally, the scientific adviser to the European Commission is the former Scottish scientific adviser, which gives an indication that we are well integrated into scientific research across the EU.
I thought that it would be dawning even on the constituency member that the threat to Scotland’s position in Europe comes not from the SNP benches but from his colleagues on the benches at Westminster. The way to preserve Scotland’s position in Europe and access to research funding is for there to be an independent Scotland, not for us to be dragged into an in-out referendum by his coalition partners in London.
Budget
4. To ask the First Minister what impact the United Kingdom Government’s proposed spending reductions for 2015-16 will have on the Scottish Government’s budget. (S4F-01442)
We will not know the full impact of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s third budget cuts until 26 June. However, we know that he set a target of a further retrenchment—further austerity—of £11.5 billion from the resource budget in 2015-16. The Scottish Government will continue to press the UK Government to take a different approach and instead outline a clear package of proposals to invest in jobs and growth. I hope that even the Conservative, Liberal and Labour members in this chamber can see the eminent common sense in that switch of policy, as opposed to the continuation of the austerity squeeze from Westminster.
Yesterday, Ernst & Young published its annual foreign and direct investment survey, which shows that Scotland has a “sparkling investment performance” and that
“there is no sign of investors being deterred from coming to Scotland”—
by the independence referendum—
“if anything, the reverse appears to be true.”
The First Minister will know that the Institute for Fiscal Studies informed the Finance Committee that by 2018, if we remain in the UK, the standard of living will be lower than it was in 2001. Does he agree that the gains made for Scotland by his Government are now at the mercy of Westminster’s austerity agenda? Shadow chancellor Ed Balls admitted on Monday that it would lead to even deeper cuts should Labour return to power, and Ed Miliband has confirmed today that he would end universal benefits. Does the First Minister agree that the only way to secure prosperity and social justice for Scotland is with independence through a resounding yes vote next year?
I thought that it was a fair calculation that today the words “inward investment” would not be mentioned by either the Conservatives or Labour, or Labour or the Conservatives—whichever way round it is these days.
Johann Lamont and Ruth Davidson have previously said that investors are being scared away from Scotland because of the independence referendum. However, the person who has said that most often is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. A year past November, he said that he knew of investors who were being scared away from Scotland. Now we have the best performance in 15 years—a “sparkling” performance according to Ernst & Young. Perhaps we could get a collective apology from bitter together about its unfounded scaremongering, exposed before the Scottish people.
State Hospital (Recruitment and Retention Payments)
5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on recruitment and retention payments paid to senior management at the state hospital. (S4F-01449)
The recruitment and retention premium for staff at the state hospital, under the agenda for change terms and conditions, was put in place on 24 June 2005 by the Scottish pay reference and implementation group, operating under delegated authority from the then Scottish Executive ministers. That premium applies to staff who have on-going access to the state hospital’s secure environment, recognising the unique and challenging environment of working at the state hospital.
The terms and conditions for state hospital senior managers were published on 18 October 2006 and make clear that, unless specified otherwise, managers are also covered by agenda for change terms, which would include the retention premium.
I encourage the First Minister to read all of the letter from the Scottish pay reference and implementation group of 24 June 2005, because it makes clear that senior staff in the state hospital are not part of the agenda for change pay scales. Senior staff do not qualify for the special payment, which applies only to front-line staff, yet all of the senior staff at the state hospital received an extra £7,000, backdated to 2005, at a time when pay was frozen for everybody else.
Does the First Minister share my anger that senior staff have taken it upon themselves to pay themselves more money, without knowledge or sign-off by the cabinet secretary, which is required? Will he therefore ensure that the matter is investigated independently of the state hospital?
I wish that Jackie Baillie had listened to the answer because if she had done so she would have heard me talk not just about the 24 June 2005 agenda for change terms and conditions but about the terms and conditions for state hospital senior managers, published on 18 October 2006, which make it clear that, unless specified otherwise, the managers are also covered by agenda for change terms, which would include the retention premium. That is the position that the civil service has come up with.
Jackie Baillie will have noticed that the terms of 24 June 2005 and 18 October 2006 follow the contractual obligations. She cannot seriously be suggesting that contractual obligations, particularly those that were negotiated under the previous Labour-Liberal Government, should not be followed through. Jackie Baillie should consider whether it is wise to impugn the integrity of people at the state hospital, given the indication that has been provided by the civil service that they were following the rules as laid down by the previous Labour-Liberal Administration.
Dementia (Treatment)
6. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to improve treatment for people with dementia. (S4F-01439)
On Monday this week, at Alzheimer Scotland’s dementia connections conference, we launched our second three-year national dementia strategy. The new strategy will further improve diagnosis rates, transform the quality of post-diagnostic support and take forward a national action plan on improving hospital care for people with dementia.
Does the First Minister agree that although Scotland has the best early diagnosis figures in the United Kingdom, there must continue to be a focus on improving post-diagnosis treatment, particularly in acute hospitals, so that people living with dementia and their families can have the support that they are, quite rightly, entitled to receive at what can often be a difficult time?
Diagnosis is the key that unlocks support for people with dementia and their families. Scotland has a good record on that front, with 64 per cent of people with dementia being diagnosed up to March 2012, compared with much lower percentages elsewhere.
The dementia commitment, which has been described as a world first by Alzheimer Scotland, includes the guarantee that everyone diagnosed from 1 April this year will be entitled to a named support worker for a minimum of a year to help them and their families to understand the illness, manage its symptoms and plan for future care. The new three-year national action plan on improving care for people with dementia in hospitals was announced last month. Supporting that, Alzheimer Scotland dementia nurse consultants have been appointed to boards across Scotland and more than 300 dementia champions are now in place.
Given the nature of the subject and the fact that, I suspect, every single person in the chamber has personal awareness of people suffering from dementia, that much needed progress should be widely welcomed.
A freedom of information request has revealed that in 2011, a patient with dementia was subjected to 13 bed or ward moves during a single stay in an NHS Fife hospital. Does the First Minister agree that that is unacceptable and will he give an assurance that, under his improvements, such high levels of moves for a single patient will not happen again?
That is unacceptable and I will certainly have the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing look into that case. On a subject such as this, when a specific example is given, I would like to be able to give the member a comprehensive reply. If the member will bring the case to the health secretary, he will certainly provide that reply. What the member described is certainly unacceptable and I hope that the changes that are being made will make the chances of such things happening again much less likely.