First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01223)
Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
John Swinney told the Cabinet in private that the volatility of the price of oil
“creates considerable uncertainty in projecting forwards Scotland’s fiscal position.”
When was he going to share that with the Scottish public?
What John Swinney pointed out to the Cabinet is that the opportunities from Scotland having control of its own natural resources will allow us to transform the Scottish economy and society.
I am absolutely astonished by that response. It appears that the First Minister has not even read the document that his Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth wrote. Perhaps he was not paying attention because it did not say what he wanted it to say.
When I called for a debate on facing up to long-term spending and services—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Johann Lamont, please.
The Scottish National Party is not on the best of grounds on this issue.
When I called for a debate on facing up to long-term spending and services, the First Minister derided me. We now find that, while I was talking about how we saved services—[Interruption.]
Order.
The noise that is made by the SNP is in inverse proportion to its confidence in its finance secretary. [Interruption.]
Order.
We now find—the SNP has read the document—that while I was talking about how we saved services, John Swinney was talking to the Cabinet about cutting them. In private, he told his Cabinet colleagues of pressure on budgets. In private, he said that that meant the need for “policy choices”. In private, he said:
“We must drive these programmes forward now.”
When were the other cabinet secretaries going to say in public what John Swinney had told them in private about cuts to their services?
Our policy choices were laid out in the budget that was passed by Parliament.
I love the new description of Johann Lamont’s cuts commission as being about saving public services. Here were we, believing that is was about abolishing free education, abolishing free personal care and abolishing old age pensioners’ access to transport. That is what the Labour Party has in mind for Scotland.
Let us talk about the detail of the document—[Interruption.]
Order. We will hear the First Minister.
Let us look at the misrepresentation on public spending. Paragraph 27 of John Swinney’s document states:
“From 2017-18 onwards public spending is therefore expected to grow in line with the economy. This would imply real terms growth in Scottish public spending of between 1.5% and 2% a year.”
That real-terms growth in public spending is being translated by the bitter together campaign, Labour and its Tory allies into cuts in public spending. The cuts in public spending are happening now by virtue of the Tories and their Liberal allies. The cuts to come from the Labour Party are part of Johann Lamont’s cuts commission, which she now pretends is to protect the Scottish people.
I asked the First Minister a serious question, and he says, “Look! There’s a squirrel!” The fact is that his lack of self-awareness and his selective quoting of his own document tells us that there is something very serious at the heart of Government—it will say one thing in private and deny in public the truth that we all know.
I asked for honesty. Let us see whether we can manage some honesty about the troops who risk their lives for our security. The United Kingdom Government’s decision to renege on its promise to the Scottish troops who are serving abroad that they would come home to Edinburgh was a blow. We can both agree on that. The Deputy First Minister described it as an act of “betrayal”. We can agree on that, too. However, how do we describe the revelations in the leaked paper that, rather than increase the size of our armed forces, the SNP has
“made clear to the Defence Workstream that a much lower budget must be assumed”?
Should we now assume that it will be “a much lower budget” and that the Deputy First Minister was being dishonest with the troops?
I quoted directly from the document to indicate the misrepresentation by the bitter together campaign. I pointed out that a document projecting real-terms growth in public spending was described by Johann Lamont and her Tory allies as cuts in public spending. That is clearly not true.
Let us turn to defence. The issue indicates exactly why Scotland should have the fiscal freedom that independence will bring. I will mention two things. First, currently more than £3 billion—£3.3 billion or £3.2 billion—is allocated to Scotland as our contribution to the UK defence forces, but only £2 billion is actually spent in Scotland. Secondly, instead of the 6,000 additional troops that Scotland was promised two years ago, we are being offered 600—or even fewer, according to the calculation.
Scotland gets only a fraction of what we pay for in defence—except, of course, when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. When it comes to those, we are not underrepresented; we are overrepresented. In fact, we get all the UK’s weapons of mass destruction. That is why I find it extraordinary that a Labour Party defence spokesman could not tell us on the radio how many troops the Labour Party would want to station in Scotland but could tell us how many nuclear missiles it wants to station in Scotland.
It is astonishing what a difference a day makes. Yesterday, the document was the first draft of a discussion document that was overtaken by events. Now it turns out that it confirms the First Minister’s land of milk and honey under independence. It cannot possibly be both.
In private, John Swinney says that, after separation, interest on our debt will be
“a significant feature of Scotland’s budget”.
In private—[Interruption.] They have read it; you might not have heard this. In fact, I know you will not have heard it. [Interruption.]
Order.
In private, John Swinney admits that, after separation, what we spend will have to be in line with policy that will be set by a foreign bank—that of the rest of the United Kingdom. In private, he asks for a study into something as basic as the affordability of the state pension in a separate Scotland. In public, he says that anyone who raises the same questions is “talking Scotland down”.
We have heard a lot of numbers from the First Minister today, but the real deficit that should worry Scots is the one between what he says in private and what he says in public. Is not it the case that what the SNP claims in public is “scaremongering”, it agrees in private is the truth?
The Scottish budget projections were set out in October last year at £2.5 billion in a public statement.
The “Fiscal Commission Working Group - First Report - Macroeconomic Framework” was—all 222 pages of it—published a few weeks ago. I have brought along a copy of it because I can somehow tell that Johann Lamont has not got round to reading it. It does not say that being part of a sterling area would restrict Scotland’s ability to use its fiscal policy; it says exactly the opposite. It says that control over fiscal policy will allow policies to grow and transform the Scottish economy. [Interruption.]
Order.
The fiscal commission also mentions the demographic pressures that the UK faces in terms of future social provision, but the detailed statistics show us that, right now, Scottish spending on social provision as a share of our public spending is at 38 per cent and that the figure for the UK is 42.3 per cent. In other words, we have more ability to protect the people of Scotland in social provision.
Only the unionist parties of Scotland could somehow portray our having Europe’s largest supply of oil reserves, which have a retail value of £1,500 billion over the next 40 years, as being a disadvantage for the people of Scotland. Every other society across Europe would be crying out for that sort of natural resource. Is it not time for us to match the great natural and people resources of Scotland and build a society of which every one of us can be proud?
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01220)
No plans in the near future.
Let us stick with the First Minister’s seeming inability to be straight with the people of Scotland on what he knows in private to be true. The First Minister says that an independent Scotland will deliver universal benefits, that it will have well-funded public services and pensions, and that all of that will be paid for by oil—the resource that he has just extolled. [Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the member.
However, Mr Swinney’s timely document states that oil receipts
“will fall in cash terms by 50% between 2011-12 and 2016-17”.
It says that in paragraph 15. It also says that those forecasts
“have not been seriously challenged by the industry or by independent commentators”.
In other words, they are right—the oil money will halve.
John Swinney’s document says that in an independent Scotland the deficit will double by 2015-16. It says that there will be a
“downward revision in current spending”.
Therefore, the document that the First Minister is extolling shows that a newly independent Scotland would have half the oil money and double the deficit, and that it would be ordinary Scots who would pay for it all. Why has none of that ever been said in public before?
Last week at First Minister’s question time—I think that Ruth Davidson was here—I pointed out to the chamber the implications of the record surge in investment in North Sea oil and gas. I pointed out the industry projections on what that would mean for oil and gas revenues in a few years’ time. I will read them out again, because they show what has happened over the past year.
I know that Ruth Davidson must be aware that we now have a record level of investment in the North Sea. I will quote exactly from the press release from Oil & Gas UK that I referred to last week. It said that, as a result of higher investment,
“thousands of jobs are now being created across Britain and the production of UK oil and gas and resulting tax revenues can now confidently be expected to rise over the coming years.”
Because of that record investment, Oil & Gas UK now expects production to reach 2 million barrels a day.
I know that Ruth Davidson will accept this point: greater investment leads to increased production, which means an increase in oil revenues. The fact that there has been a surge in investment in the North Sea over the past year and that Oil & Gas UK estimates that £100 billion is projected to be invested there means rising revenues, not falling revenues. Given that I said that last week, I can hardly be hiding that fact from the Scottish people—indeed, I proclaim that fact to the Scottish people.
So the defence is that the report is out of date and that there have been revisions to it.
Let us look at the revisions, because the Office for Budget Responsibility has given a revised estimate of how much money we will get from oil. It gave us a revision in December, after many of the findings that the First Minister has told us about. We are talking about the OBR that has not been challenged by industry, experts or commentators. In its December 2012 “Economic and fiscal outlook”, the OBR said that the tax revenues figure for 2015-16 was not the figure of £4.8 billion that is in John Swinney’s document, but £4.6 billion, which is hundreds of millions of pounds less. The figure is worse than John Swinney’s figure.
If, as the First Minister states, he has been updating Parliament regularly on how many barrels of oil are in the North Sea, why did he not tell Fergus Ewing, who answered a question on the issue yesterday by using the same figures that the Government has been using for many, many months? That does not stack up.
The First Minister says that the oil tax revenues are enough and are growing. If the OBR’s update in December is wrong and John Swinney’s secret document is out of date and is not the latest one, what is? In the interests of transparency, will the First Minister give us the updated document from John Swinney on the fiscal position for a future Scotland? When will the First Minister publish an update to tell the people of Scotland what he has tried to hide in private?
I will have to pause a few seconds to disentangle those questions.
I mentioned last week that we would publish an oil and gas update document in the near future, so I am delighted to tell Ruth Davidson that that will come out very, very shortly, as I said last week.
In answer to Ruth Davidson’s first question, I read out the industry analysis that was published last week. She has said twice that the industry has not challenged the OBR’s figures. Oil & Gas UK is the industry. It represents the companies that have invested £13 billion. Why have they invested £13 billion in North Sea oil and gas in the past year? Because they believe that that will lead to increased production and increased revenues for their companies and for the Exchequer. The question is: which Exchequer will get the increased revenues?
Under the formulation of Ruth Davidson and her colleagues, Scotland will get the cuts—the welfare cuts that are coming in and the public spending cuts—but London will get the increased revenues, just as it has for the past 40 years. For 40 years, Tory politicians have told us that North Sea oil and gas are running out. We now have the evidence that the next 40 years will have greater value than the past 40 years. We will ensure that, after London has had its turn for the past 40 years, the next 40 years will be Scotland’s turn.
Adam Ingram has a constituency question.
Will the First Minister mobilise Scottish Government support to its fullest extent to maintain the coaling operations of the Scottish Resources Group, which were reported this morning to be in severe financial difficulties? He will be aware that many hundreds of jobs and the economic wellbeing of communities in Cumnock and Doon Valley depend on those activities.
I share the member’s concern about developments in respect of the Scottish Resources Group and about their potential impact on employees and their families in Cumnock and Doon Valley.
Fergus Ewing, the minister for energy, has worked closely with the company and others to do all that we can to help. We will continue to do everything that we can to assist the SRG to maintain operations as a priority. We will of course provide support to employees who face redundancy through the partnership action for continuing employment initiative. The member can be sure that the issue will be a key concern of the Government as we do our best for the affected employees.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01226)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
We have seen the papers and we know what the people on the front bench really think. In private, the First Minister is a pessimist. On oil, they are worried; on public service jobs, they are alarmed; and on pensions, they are panicking. Of those three challenges, which his finance secretary identified, which keeps the First Minister awake at night?
I will tell the member what does not keep me awake at night—[Interruption.]
Order.
That is having to face Willie Rennie on a Thursday. I sleep soundly.
The only problem is that I woke up this morning to hear Willie Rennie on the radio. If he said that oil revenues were declining once, he must have said it half a dozen times. I have now read out information from the industry’s oil and gas survey last week and its arguments for why oil and gas production is going back to 2 million barrels a day and why revenues will rise as a result of the investment that is pouring into the North Sea.
The next time that Willie Rennie is on the radio, perhaps he will not keep me awake in the morning by going through the familiar routine that we have heard from unionist politicians since 1980—that the resource is all running out, is not really worth anything and is far, far too much trouble. It is the most enormous resource in the continent of Europe, and every other country would give its eye teeth to command such oil revenues.
The finance secretary claps, but the First Minister contradicts the finance secretary’s figures. Here he goes again: excuses are at an all-time high, panic is rising and flannel is at unprecedented levels, as we have just heard.
The SNP has boasted that Scotland’s deficit is £7.6 billion. Who on earth celebrates—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the member, please.
Who on earth celebrates when they spend more than they get? [Interruption.]
Order.
No Scottish family would celebrate that, and yet the SNP does. Now we know that the celebrations are fake. There is no fizz in the First Minister’s juice any more. Is it not the case that only his Cabinet colleagues get to know the truth about the real price of independence? Why does he think that the real truth is only good enough for the privileged few?
I will see if I can put Willie Rennie’s gas at a peep along with his fizz. Neither the truth nor the deficit is the strongest suit of the Liberal Democrats at present. I read out what the document says about public spending and the real-terms increase of between 1.5 and 2 per cent a year.
What keeps me awake at night are the implications of Liberal-Tory policy in Scotland and the decline in public spending. What keeps me awake at night are the bedroom tax and the impact on social security in Scotland. What keeps me awake at night is the £1 billion that will be withdrawn from the poorest sections of the community thanks to the policies of the Tory-Liberal Administration in London. What keeps me awake at night is the thought of Trident missiles for the next 50 years in Scotland when we should be spending that money on the social and economic welfare of Scotland.
What does not keep me awake at night is the band of five Liberal Democrats, because sooner or later Willie Rennie will work out why there is a band of only five Liberal Democrats in this chamber—because they put the Tories into power at Westminster and they foist their policies on the Scottish people.
Human Rights Act 1998
4. To ask the First Minister what consideration the Scottish Government has given to the introduction of legislation regarding the implementation of the relevant convention rights if the United Kingdom Government was to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. (S4F-01229)
The Scottish Government strongly opposes the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. We expect to be consulted by the UK Government in the event of any proposed changes to human rights legislation. To date, no such proposal has been communicated to us. In the event of a repeal, it would be open to the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that protects the fundamental rights of people in Scotland—at least in the current context of our devolved responsibilities.
I thank the First Minister for that answer. Does he agree that a proposal that is designed to pander to a right-wing, Eurosceptic minority would see Scotland isolated in Europe and that, instead of repealing the Human Rights Act 1998, we need to extend the scope and reach of fundamental human rights here in Scotland?
I agree. The UK Government is out of step with civilised people across the continent. Its attitude towards human rights is parochial and regressive. The European convention on human rights fulfils a valuable role in Scottish society. An independent Scotland with a written constitution would allow us to assert the positive rights that people in a modern democracy expect to have and are entitled to have.
Does the First Minister agree that, were the UK Government to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, it would set a unique precedent in the developed world, separating the United Kingdom from the other 46 participants in the court and putting the UK on the same level as Belarus?
The trend of the dominant partners in the UK Government coalition is against the trend across civilised society. It has got to the stage where they are so opposed to joint European action that they question the validity of European arrest warrants. That is happening at Westminster—they question arrest warrants that get some of the most dangerous, vicious people repatriated so that they can stand trial and face justice. The fact that the Tory party is putting politics before arresting murderers, rapists and other people who should be brought back to face justice shows the extent to which it has lost touch not just with civilised values but with reality.
Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland
5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will clarify the current relationship between the Scottish Police Authority and police Scotland. (S4F-01234)
The respective roles of the SPA and the police service of Scotland, as set out in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, are based on the roles that have been in place and have worked well for more than 40 years in Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for that brief answer. In four separate interviews, the chief constable has indicated that he will be unable to maintain the 1,000 additional police officers during the forthcoming spending period, because of budgetary pressures. In addition, last night, police staff who are in Unison shared with members of the Parliament their substantial experience of job losses and insecurity. Given the evident friction between the SPA convener, Government officials and the chief constable, which has been exposed in correspondence that was belatedly released to the Justice Committee this week, is the First Minister committed to ensuring that the chief constable is appropriately empowered on human resources and finance—subject to proper accountability—to deliver on the job concerns that have been expressed by police staff and the chief constable?
Yes, I believe that. To quote Chief Constable House directly, on Tuesday, he said:
“I believe that Police Scotland needs a balanced and integrated workforce of Police Officers and Police Staff. I would be keen to examine ways to improve that balance within our agreed budget. But I must repeat that we do not have a strategy or plan to backfill Police Staff Roles with Police Officers. I want as many Officers as possible to be on the street in an operational role”.
Yet again, police numbers in Scotland are at record levels, but we know that that would never have happened if the Labour Party had been in office, and we can take it from that that the 37-year low in recorded crime would not have happened, either.
I saw Graeme Pearson’s comments in the newspapers on Sunday about what he calls historic or belated documents. These matters were settled in January and, in terms of the detail, February. Rather than rake over what he calls belated documents, should he not put his weight and experience behind the SPA and the new police service of Scotland, which are working effectively to bring about a police service in Scotland of which all of us can be proud?
Notwithstanding that, at the meeting last night with Unison and civilian staff, many people were concerned. They do not know what the future holds for them next week or in the coming years. Does the First Minister share my concern that, given that the single combined police force will come into being on 1 April, those matters must be addressed urgently for the sake of those employees and their lives?
Yes, I agree, which is exactly why I quoted what the chief constable said on Tuesday about the balance that he sees in the forces in Scotland. It has been argued that the increase in police numbers in Scotland is somehow at the expense of civilian staff in Scotland—
It is.
I hear it being said again. I had a look at the figures from England and Wales. Not only—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the First Minister.
I seem to remember that the Labour Party has some responsibility in Wales at present, so I had a look at the figures. It is instructive to see what the Labour Party actually does when it is in office, rather than what it says it will do when it is in opposition. The figures are instructive, because not only are police numbers in England falling dramatically, but police support staff numbers are falling faster than they have in Scotland.
I believe that the single police service of Scotland will allow us to make the necessary efficiencies. That is why we are setting up a single police service and delivering the correct balance of police staff and police officers to bring about a police service of which we can all be proud.
The matters to which Graeme Pearson referred are not settled. The SPA will meet tomorrow, when it will return to the core question of where power lies, but the public are to be kept in the dark, because the item will be taken in private. Does the First Minister agree that it is clearly in the public interest that the people of Scotland should be able to follow exactly how decisions that will fundamentally shape the future of Scotland’s policing are being reached?
I am sorry, but agreement on the general principles was reached at the SPA board meeting on 18 January, and detailed agreement was reached last month. The bodies are working hard to bring about the effective launch of the police service of Scotland. Huge progress has been made in preparing for that event. Given the fears that the Liberal Democrats expressed in advance of the January SPA meeting—they said that it would be an absolute disaster, but that did not come to pass and, strangely enough, they did not return to the subject the following week—would it not be reasonable to expect the Opposition parties in Scotland to get behind the SPA and the police service in their attempts to bring huge success from the new police service of Scotland?
Schools (Reform)
6. To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to reform the school education system. (S4F-01225)
Scottish schools are consistently excellent and, importantly, there is substantial evidence that they are getting better. We can see that from last year’s record-high exam passes and the positive school leavers destinations data, from which we should all take great satisfaction.
We have the right elements in place to secure that excellent, world-class system. We are making good progress with the current reform programme to deliver that aim. I compliment the inspiring and dedicated teachers who are rising to the challenge of delivering a modern education for their pupils through the curriculum for excellence.
The glowing picture that the First Minister paints is rather contradicted by this week’s publication from the commission on school reform, on which one of his party’s councillors, Paul McLennan, from East Lothian Council, served. How will the Government take forward the report’s key recommendations, which are that greater school autonomy and greater diversity of provision are required to improve standards and, in particular, help those who are being failed by the current system?
As the education secretary has said, there are some interesting proposals in the document, and they will be treated very seriously. That is why he welcomed the document.
I am sure that Murdo Fraser will accept that the figures that we have on international comparisons show that the relative decline from which Scottish education was suffering was reversed in 2009, when our position of stability in the top quartile of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries was achieved.
I really do not think that Murdo Fraser should get into misrepresenting what the commission said. Let me directly quote Keir Bloomer, who chaired the commission—[Interruption.] On the radio on Monday, he said:
“It’s very important I think to see this in perspective. This is not a crisis, Scotland’s education system is not failing. On the contrary it has high standards, remarkably consistent high standards across the whole range of its schools.”
If that is what Keir Bloomer says, cannot Murdo Fraser try, along with Keir Bloomer, to get matters into perspective? Can Murdo Fraser see the positive suggestions that are made in the report and take them forward for the good of Scottish education?
The commission spoke of the devastating consequences of social and economic disadvantage. Will the First Minister allocate additional resources, to enable schools in disadvantaged areas to tackle the issue head-on?
We look substantially at positive proposals to attack poverty and disadvantage in Scottish society, as the member well knows when he examines this Government’s record in terms of our ambitions for early intervention to tackle what has been an historical failing in Scotland in not achieving the universality of excellence in education that we want to achieve.
I have to say to the member that the way to secure that universality and get every child in Scotland an educational chance is not to impose tuition fees when they try to get into higher education.