Broadband (Highlands and Islands)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to provide communities in the Highlands and Islands with access to fast and reliable broadband. (S4O-03441)
With our partners, we are investing more than £126 million in the Highlands and Islands digital Scotland superfast broadband programme, which will deliver fibre-based broadband to 84 per cent of premises in the region by 2017-18. Commercial deployment alone would have reached only 21 per cent of premises. Roll-out is on target, with more than 14,000 premises now able to access fibre services in the Highland and Moray regions. The number will rise to more than 45,000 across the Highlands and Islands by the end of this year.
For the hardest-to-reach areas, community broadband Scotland is helping rural communities to develop and deliver innovative broadband solutions. Last month, I announced a three-year extension and additional funding for community broadband Scotland, which takes its total funding to £7.5 million.
Notwithstanding the Deputy First Minister’s reply, what comfort can she offer to constituents in communities such as Whitehouse, in north Kintyre, where there are no immediate plans for an upgrade to the local BT exchange? In communities where conventional broadband is simply not available, constituents are having to pay up to £100 per month for satellite broadband. The cost is prohibitive for constituents who are on low incomes.
Part of my answer was intended to indicate to Jamie McGrigor that although the main broadband programme will deliver next-generation broadband to many more households than commercial roll-out would have done, we recognise that there are, given our geography, areas in Scotland that are hard to reach.
That is why we have done two things. First, a £2.5 million innovation fund has been set up to assess technology options once the fibre backbone has been deployed, and as new and more innovative solutions become available. Secondly, as I said, we established community broadband Scotland, which is working with communities in harder-to-reach areas to look at innovative ways of delivering broadband solutions. As I said, we have just increased the funding that is available to community broadband Scotland.
If there are particular areas about which Jamie McGrigor wants to write to me, I will be more than happy to ensure that we help him and his constituents to look at the options that are available.
National Health Service (Privatisation)
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to privatise NHS services. (S4O-03442)
As is set out in “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland”, the Scottish Government’s vision for the NHS in Scotland is for it to remain a publicly owned and publicly funded health service that provides care free at the point of delivery. Unlike the Labour Party, we do not believe in privatisation.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that the NHS in Scotland is fully devolved and gets its full share of funding whether services in England are procured publicly or privately, because it is public money that procures those services. We know that procurement in the private sector is usually more expensive. On top of that, the NHS in Scotland can be privatised only if this Parliament votes for that, which is something that we know no party or individual in this Parliament advocates—
Can we have a question, Mr Findlay?
Given those facts—they are facts—on what credible basis can it be argued that Scotland’s NHS will be privatised in the event that Scotland rejects separation?
I will deal with the facts. The fact is that the UK Government has estimated that the impact of privatisation will be to reduce the health budget in England by £1 billion a year within the next two or three years. If that happens, the knock-on impact on the Barnett consequentials, which Mr Findlay clearly does not understand, will be the loss of £100 million a year to the national health service in Scotland. Unlike Mr Findlay, I do not think that we should put the future of the NHS in Scotland in Tory hands in London.
In relation to the change fund, which is accessed by the NHS and local authorities, and homecare, which is provided by local authorities and the third sector, the cabinet secretary will be aware from his recent visit to Hairmyres hospital that there are discharge delays because homecare packages have not been put in place timeously. Following his visit, has the cabinet secretary had further thoughts on a potential solution to the problem?
Ms Fabiani, I think that that question is really quite wide of the mark when we are talking about privatisation, but if the cabinet secretary wishes to answer it briefly, he can do so.
I will, as always, answer briefly, Presiding Officer. I have announced this morning £5 million to deal with delayed discharges. I am glad to say that the allocation to deal with the issue in South Lanarkshire is £400,000, which will be used to maximum effect to reduce delayed discharges, particularly in Hairmyres hospital.
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Discussions)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the newly appointed Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (S4O-03443)
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment has written twice to Liz Truss, the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs secretary of state, since her appointment: first, to congratulate her on her new post, and secondly to finalise the details for notifying Scotland’s voluntary coupled support schemes to the European Commission. In the first letter, he also took the opportunity to ask her to reconsider the appalling convergence allocation decision that was made by her predecessor, which will short-change Scotland’s farmers to the tune of around €187 million between 2015 and 2020.
Bearing in mind that Ms Truss will be the fifth DEFRA secretary of state that the cabinet secretary has worked with during his time in office, he suggested an early meeting to discuss the need for Scottish and devolved ministers’ involvement in important rural and marine issues. I hope that the new secretary of state will look more favourably on, and show greater respect for, the needs of Scotland’s farmers, fishermen and other rural industries than her immediate predecessor did.
I think that it is fair to say that the previous secretary of state, Owen Paterson, has not exactly left a legacy to be proud of: failure to repatriate the red meat levy that is owed to Scotland, failure to repatriate the convergence uplift funding from the European Union to Scotland’s farmers and crofters, and failure to represent Scotland properly at EU level during common agricultural policy negotiations. Does the minister agree that it is imperative that Scotland have a seat at the top table in Europe prior to the next round of CAP negotiations starting in 2017, and that the only way to ensure that is a yes vote on 18 September?
Yes, I agree with that assessment. What I will say about the need for us to be at the top table is that we need to have direct representation in the European Union, and we need the ability to negotiate our own priorities and thereby avoid the situation that unfortunately befell Mr Paterson, who forgot to raise the red-line issue that the Scottish Government had raised with him prior to entering the European discussions.
Clearly, we need to achieve more CAP funding from Europe and we need to have the opportunity to use the full fiscal powers of an independent country to encourage farm tenancies and new entrants to farming. We also need to ensure that Scotland’s agricultural levy supports Scottish produce. Finally, we need to ensure that we have overseas representation that is dedicated to promoting Scotland’s food and drink sector, and we need to avoid the ludicrous situation whereby we have had a challenge in getting beef imports to Japan simply because the United Kingdom Government did not prioritise that in its negotiations with the Japanese Government.
Independence (Taxation)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of taxation in an independent Scotland. (S4O-03444)
In “Scotland’s Future—Your Guide to an Independent Scotland” we have set out our plans to build after independence a simpler Scottish tax system that stimulates Scotland’s economy, builds social cohesion and sustains our public services. The United Kingdom tax system is complex and inefficient. By designing a simpler tax system based on a clear set of principles with fewer reliefs and exemptions, Scotland could reduce opportunities for avoidance and so generate additional revenues without increasing tax rates. As Scotland’s public finances are healthier than those of the UK as a whole, there will be no requirement to raise the general rate of taxation to fund existing levels of spending after independence.
Just before the recess, the First Minister claimed that in an independent Scotland the council tax would be replaced by a local income tax. The Scottish Parliament information centre calculated that such a move could cost the average family with two earners £550 more a year. Increasingly, it appears that under Scottish National Party proposals in the event of a yes vote, big business will profit while ordinary workers suffer. Why is the white paper so light on taxation? Is not it the case that taxes will have to go up to achieve what is being promised with a yes vote? If not, how exactly will the Scottish Government pay for that?
On Mrs McDougall’s last point, the answer is no: taxes will not have to go up to pay for independence. What independence will do is give us the opportunity to change our spending priorities. One of the spending priorities that we will change concerns the ludicrous amount of money that, given yesterday’s vote, Mrs McDougall and her colleagues seem to be prepared to spend on weapons of mass destruction. They would spend vast amounts of money on those, rather than on tackling child poverty and the issues that I thought used to matter to the Labour Party in Scotland.
On local taxation, the Scottish Government has a commitment during this session of Parliament to work with others to discuss the future of local taxation and to introduce a system that is based on the ability to pay. That is the Government’s commitment and that is what we will fulfil during this session of Parliament.
The finance secretary will be aware that Opposition parties have failed to agree proposals for devolving further tax powers in the event of a no vote, as is evidenced by their vague declaration earlier this week, and by Alistair Darling’s complete inability to detail them on Tuesday night. Does the cabinet secretary agree—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Mr Gibson.
—that the only guaranteed way to see this Parliament gain full taxation powers is to vote yes in next month’s referendum?
Cabinet secretary, I hope that you heard the question.
People are entitled to know exactly what proposition will be put forward by the Opposition parties. There was absolutely no clarity on Tuesday at the declaration from the party leaders, nor has there been on any occasion in the past, and there certainly was not any clarity from Alistair Darling in the television debate on Tuesday night.
Let us be absolutely clear: if people want to control their tax in Scotland, they have to vote for independence.
The latest Scottish Government mailing says:
“we would increase tax allowances ... in line with the cost of living”.
Will that apply to every single tax allowance? If so, what is the approximate cost?
Yes—clearly the commitment extends to the relevant taxes. Of course, all that would be set out in the budget of an independent Scotland, on the issues that would be taken forward by the finance minister at that time. That is what is set out in the Government’s document, and that is the commitment that we make to the people of Scotland.
Armed Police
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the decision to arm police officers on routine duties was regarded as an operational matter and was not scrutinised by the Parliament. (S4O-03445)
More than 98 per cent of police officers in Scotland are unarmed. We have clearly stated on a number of occasions that decisions on the deployment of police officers, including the small number of armed police officers, are a matter for the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland.
That freedom from political interference reflects the position of members from all parts of the chamber when we debated the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill in Parliament. That legislation ensures that we also have the appropriate checks and balances in place, including scrutiny roles for the Scottish Police Authority, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland.
Furthermore, the Parliament’s Justice Sub-Committee on Policing exists to scrutinise all aspects of policing in Scotland.
This whole issue lays bare the Achilles heel of a single police force that has no meaningful public accountability to local areas—a threat about which my party repeatedly warned the cabinet secretary. Does he now concede that the policy regrettably confirms that vital checks and balances have been lost by the rolling out of a uniform police culture across all of Scotland, regardless of need or appropriateness?
No. I believe that there are now significantly more checks, balances and safeguards than existed under the former regime.
We now have, in particular, a Scottish Police Authority that has greater stature than the previous individual constabularies’ authorities. As I said, in addition to that, we have the parliamentary sub-committee that did not exist before, and three particular provisions relating to armed policing. We have the PIRC, which did not previously exist with the same power and authority. HMICS has a particular enhanced role, which is doubtless because of the single service, and we have the commitment that standing firearms authority be reviewed on a three-monthly basis.
That is a far greater amount of safeguards and checks and balances than ever existed under the old regime.
Antisocial Behaviour (Glasgow Provan)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps are being taken to tackle antisocial behaviour in Glasgow Provan. (S4O-03446)
The Scottish Government is committed to tackling antisocial behaviour. Our 2009 strategy “Promoting Positive Outcomes: Working Together to Prevent Antisocial Behaviour in Scotland” marked a significant shift in policy, recognising that prevention, early intervention and diversion should be at the heart of approaches to tackling antisocial behaviour. The number of reported antisocial behaviour-related crimes in Scotland has fallen by 38 per cent over the period 2009-10 to 2012-13 and, of course, there are now more police in Scotland than there have ever been.
Both Police Scotland and Community Safety Glasgow confirm an overall reduction in antisocial behaviour in the Provan area. Diversionary activities are a key contributor to that, and local partners are working to ensure that there are appropriate activities available for young people in the area. The cashback for communities programme also provides a range of sporting, cultural and youth-work opportunities for young people in Glasgow Provan. The Scottish Government is currently consulting on a number of potential legislative changes to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which will help to improve the response to antisocial behaviour.
Perhaps the reduction in the reporting of crime has come about for the very reason that members of the public have been charged for calling the 101 service. Will the minister advise me whether there are any plans to ensure that the service is a freephone service, in order to ensure that people are encouraged to report antisocial crime in the first place?
Cabinet secretary. I am sorry. I meant minister.
Thank you for the promotion, Presiding Officer.
The introduction of the 101 service was designed to ensure that the 999 service works as efficiently as it can in connection with serious reports of crime. At the moment, I am not aware of any intention to change the proposals in respect of the 101 service, but I am sure that Paul Martin will want to make representations not just here in the chamber, but directly to the justice ministers in that particular regard.
Income Poverty
To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to address income poverty. (S4O-03447)
This Government takes low pay very seriously, and we are leading the way by doing all that we can to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from the living wage. Our commitment to supporting the Scottish living wage for the duration of this Parliament is a decisive long-term commitment to those who are on the lowest incomes.
We want to encourage others to follow the example that we have set. That is why we have funded a pilot for the Poverty Alliance to deliver a living wage accreditation scheme, which aims to increase the number of employers paying the living wage in all sectors in Scotland, to make decent pay the norm in our country.
In “Scotland’s Future” we have set out information on our plan to set up a fair work commission, and we guarantee that the minimum wage will rise at least in line with inflation. Over the past five years, that would have improved the annual earnings of some of the lowest-paid Scots by over £600.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that very welcome announcement. He will be aware that over the past decade more and more people have been pushed into poverty pay and reliance on in-work benefits because of United Kingdom pay policy. Does he agree that the only way to ensure that Scotland’s workers are lifted out of poverty pay is a yes vote six weeks from today?
When we look at the erosion in the value and significance of the minimum wage because of the failure to increase it in line with the cost of living in every year since 2008, we can see the real effects—the realities—of Westminster Government in Scotland. Independence provides us with the opportunity to ensure that, in line with the commitments that we have set out, the minimum wage rises at the very least in line with inflation. That is a commitment that the Government gives to the people of Scotland.
Rape Victims (Access to Justice)
To ask the Scottish Government how it is improving access to justice for rape victims. (S4O-03448)
Rape and sexual assault are among the most distressing crimes in our society. They are totally unacceptable. The Scottish Government is working with our key partners to ensure that perpetrators are held to account and victims have access to appropriate support.
We have strengthened and continue to strengthen the law in relation to rape and sexual assault. That includes strengthening the law around sexual crime through the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, giving victims of sexual offences automatic access to measures such as screens and video links when giving evidence, and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s creation of the specialist national sexual crimes unit to prosecute serious sexual offences.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of a recent BBC survey regarding regional variation in the practice of marking police reports “no crime”, covering a four-year period, while Police Scotland has been in existence only since 1 April 2013. How can consistency across Scotland be achieved without compromising operational independence?
I am grateful for the question. I should make it clear that there are long-standing rules that the police follow in deciding whether to record a report as a “no crime”. Those rules apply to all offences for which a crime has originally been recorded, and include situations in which credible information emerges after the recording of a crime that indicates that a crime has not been committed. Those rules pre-date the creation of Police Scotland and nothing has changed since the establishment of the single service. However, the single service has allowed for greater consistency, improved national standards and procedures and, indeed, the establishment of a national unit, as has been referred to.