Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03004)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s ambitious programme for Scotland.
It is now a week since the First Minister was asked about the serious allegations around the property deals of her business spokesperson Michelle Thomson. Since then, the list of questions has only grown.
We were grateful to the Lord Advocate for coming to the chamber to make it clear that the delay in pursuing the case against the lawyer representing Michelle Thomson was down to the Law Society of Scotland. We now know that it was not the Crown Office that delayed investigations by more than a year, but we do not know who did so or why.
As I said last week, I am not asking the First Minister to comment on a live police investigation. However, does she think that the Law Society, in delaying action on the case for so many months, has met its responsibilities on the matter?
In the long list of ridiculous questions that I have been asked by Labour in the chamber over a series of months, that one takes the biscuit. I am not responsible for the Law Society of Scotland—[Interruption.]
Order.
The Law Society of Scotland is an independent regulatory body. If Kezia Dugdale has questions for the society, I suggest that she would be better advised to direct those questions to it.
I said last week—and it is worth repeating today—that serious allegations have been made, and I take those allegations very seriously. If they are proven, that would be serious and, in my view, unacceptable. However, a police investigation is under way, and earlier this week we heard that a referral has been made to the Westminster Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It would therefore be prejudicial for me to comment in detail on the substance of allegations that are under live investigation—[Interruption.]
Order.
Everyone—even MPs—is entitled to due process and a presumption of innocence. Let us allow the investigation to proceed. When it concludes, if there are questions to be answered or if I require to take any action as Scottish National Party leader, that will happen.
I make it clear that I take, and will always take, responsibility for any action that relates to the SNP. With the greatest respect, however, I will not take sanctimonious lectures from a Labour Party that in the previous session of Parliament watched five of its MPs or former MPs be sent to jail. [Interruption.]
Order. I call Ms Dugdale.
The Law Society has duties around the regulation of solicitors that are gifted to it by an act of Parliament. The society is also an integral part of our justice system, and the First Minister has ultimate responsibility for that justice system. That matters because people must have confidence that the system treats everyone the same, regardless of party or position. The public will not accept any perception, fair or otherwise, that the Scottish establishment is closing ranks to protect one of its own—[Interruption.]
Order.
Not when vulnerable families have been taken advantage of in that way, and not when we see pensioners on our television screens talking about how they have been exploited.
Will the First Minister join me in calling on the Law Society to hold a proper, independent, external inquiry into the matter and to publish all papers relating to the delay?
I think that the Law Society should answer all and any questions that are directed to it. I cannot answer on behalf of an independent organisation, but I would certainly welcome publication of any or all documents relating to this case.
The Law Society is a regular and vociferous critic of this Government on a wide range of policy issues—as I am sure Kezia Dugdale will know, because even if she has not done so personally, many members on the Labour benches will have quoted those criticisms on umpteen occasions. Presiding Officer, can you imagine the outcry if, on one or other of the issues on which the Law Society takes the opposite view to that of this Government, I asked for an investigation into the running of the Law Society? The Opposition, rightly, would be up in arms. The Law Society is an independent organisation.
What we heard in this chamber from the independent Lord Advocate is the fact that the Crown Office acted speedily and appropriately when it received the referral from the Law Society. The matter has now been referred to the police and a live police investigation is under way. I think that it is incumbent on all of us to allow that police investigation to do its work.
I welcome that answer from the First Minister and the support that she offered for full publication from the Law Society. I think that that is welcome progress.
Members: Oh!
I welcome the answer and still they groan.
There are more than questions of legality here; there are questions of judgment. Last week, the First Minister told us that she did not know about the case in question until she read about it in the papers, and I take her at her word. However, we still have not had an explanation for the fact that the First Minister personally appointed Michelle Thomson to lead on business policy for the SNP. There is a contradiction here: on the one hand, everybody in the SNP praised Michelle Thomson for her business experience; but on the other hand, the First Minister says that nobody in the SNP knew anything about Michelle Thomson’s business experience. That does not stack up.
Michelle Thomson’s company boasted that the increase in the number of people struggling to pay their mortgage during the recession was “a great opportunity” and that if people were emotionally distant they could make a “huge profit”. I ask the First Minister: is preying on desperate people ever an ethical way to run a business?
No, I do not think that it is. If those allegations and any other allegations are proven—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the First Minister.
As I said last week, we will treat that as a serious matter. As I also said last week and as I say again today, I did not, and the SNP did not, have any prior knowledge of the serious allegations that have been made. If Kezia Dugdale has evidence to the contrary, she should bring that to the chamber instead of simply indulging in insinuation.
I picked up on Kezia Dugdale’s comment about judgment. I think that that is important because the judgment that I take seriously—in fact, the only judgement that matters to any of us in here—is the judgment of the Scottish people. I think that Kezia Dugdale should occasionally look at what is happening outside this chamber. For the past eight years, all that we have heard from her and her colleagues is “SNP bad, SNP bad, SNP bad”, but all that has happened in that time is that SNP support has risen and Labour support has declined. It is perhaps time for a new tactic by Kezia Dugdale before it is far too late for a party that is dying on its feet. [Applause.]
Order. Let us hear Ms Dugdale.
I came to the chamber to ask questions about businesses that make their money from exploiting vulnerable people, and the First Minister’s response was to refer to a poll and tell us that everyone loves her. That is really quite incredible.
This is the last First Minister’s questions before the SNP conference. We know that Michelle Thomson was due to play a starring role at the conference, hosting a fringe event called “What is stopping UK businesses from exploring new markets?”. The First Minister personally endorsed Michelle Thomson as a candidate saying:
“Michelle knows what she’s doing”.
Now we all know what Michelle was doing.
Is it not time for the First Minister to admit— [Interruption.]
Order.
Is it not time for the First Minister to admit that Michelle Thomson’s business dealings were wrong, that she was wrong to appoint her and that it would be wrong for Michelle Thomson to return as an SNP MP?
I will continue to take the approach that I set out last week and set out again today, which is to allow investigations to take their course and to act on the conclusion of those investigations. It is because the allegations are serious and because they are being treated as serious that, right now, Michelle Thomson is not a member of the SNP, she does not hold the SNP whip at Westminster, she is not a spokesperson for the SNP and she will not be attending the SNP conference. That is what happens when serious allegations are raised that concern the SNP. If only Labour, down the years, had always acted as appropriately as that, we might be in a different situation.
I will continue to act appropriately, and I say to Kezia Dugdale that she should do likewise because, if she continues to indulge in the behaviour that we have seen repeatedly from her and her colleagues, I think that her and her party’s fortunes will continue to go in the same direction that they have been going in for quite some time.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02993)
No plans in the near future.
Political interference, suppression of critical thought, meddling, devastating, dramatic and harmful—that is what academics think of the Scottish Government’s bill to increase political control over the way universities are run. [Interruption.]
Order.
The reputation of our universities has been founded on their academic independence and their sustainable funding depends on their charitable status. The bill, at a stroke, threatens to demolish both of those foundations. It is a bill that can cause huge harm but does not appear to give us any gain.
In education, our primary school literacy and numeracy rates are falling, our secondary school teacher numbers are plummeting and our further education college places have been slashed. Can the First Minister see why people might be worried about her plans for Scottish universities?
First, college places have been protected as per the commitment in the SNP manifesto. [Interruption.]
Order.
Attainment levels in our education system are actually improving, but we have said that they are not improving fast enough to our satisfaction, which is why we have put in place such an impressive—I think—and substantial body of work to improve them further.
Let me turn to the important matter of the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Bill. It is important that we, as a Government, engage with and listen to the views that are expressed from the higher education sector, and we will continue to do that, but let me be clear that the bill is not about introducing ministerial control over universities. It is—I make no apology for this—about ensuring that the governance of our universities is transparent and inclusive. That is why the bill has been welcomed by students and trade unions. I believe that even Labour has managed to welcome something that the SNP has decided to do.
Universities are autonomous bodies. Ruth Davidson particularly mentioned charitable status. It is therefore, probably, quite important that she is aware of the comment that the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator made in a submission to the original consultation. I quote:
“in our view they”—
the proposals in the bill—
“would not affect the constitutions of higher education institutions in ways that would give Ministers the power to direct or control these institutions’ activities”.
It has raised no concerns about the charitable status of universities.
These are, in my view, important matters. Why are they important? It is because our universities are an amazing success story. We saw just last week that we have five universities in the world’s top 200. That is more per head of population than any other country on the face of this planet. We will continue to work with our universities to make sure that they continue to be that fantastic success story.
The First Minister says that she does not want to increase ministerial control over universities, but that is completely at odds with what is contained in the bill, and the warnings from the university sector could not be clearer. The First Minister talked about charitable status. I have here Universities Scotland’s independent legal advice on the impact of the SNP’s proposals, and it says that the SNP’s reforms contain “significant risk” that Scotland’s universities could lose their status as charities, threatening hundreds of millions of pounds of borrowing, private finance and income from donations.
The bill is a mess. The universities hate it and say that they have not been properly consulted on it; the legal advice says that the bill could threaten universities’ charitable status; and the bill risks blowing a gaping hole in higher education funding—all for reasons that the Scottish Government struggles to explain.
The First Minister is absolutely right when she says that Scotland has five universities in the world’s top 200. Every single one of those five has raised serious concerns about the Government’s plans. Is it not time that the First Minister recognised that and dropped this damaging bill?
There is an opportunity for us to be very constructive about this. Ruth Davidson questions the reasons for the bill. There is a good reason—and a good argument—to say that we want teaching and non-teaching staff and students to be properly and appropriately represented in the governance of their institutions. That is what the bill is about and it is an important objective.
Ruth Davidson cites legal advice. I said in my first answer that we will continue to engage with the universities and discuss these issues. My quote was from the charities regulator—the body that decides whether an institution has charitable status. I do not think that it is possible for Ruth Davidson simply to sweep that aside as if it does not matter.
There are serious issues here. All of us across the chamber want—I certainly want—to see our successful universities go on to be even more successful in future. That is in the interests of the Government and in the interests of our country as a whole. It is ridiculous to suggest that this Government would do anything to put that at risk.
We will continue to engage with our universities and we will do so positively and constructively. If Ruth Davidson wants to be a constructive part of that debate, I would warmly welcome it.
The First Minister will be aware that, last night, the Wood Group announced a consultation to cut 90 of its 250 staff at Sullom Voe oil terminal, while Bilfinger Industrial Services will potentially lose 170 of its 290 members of staff. Will she ask Highlands and Islands Enterprise to conduct a full assessment of the impact on the local economy and on local businesses? Will she also agree to meet the office of the oil and gas regulator, the Oil and Gas Authority, which is pressing the case for the Schiehallion oil field to use Sullom Voe oil terminal rather than Rotterdam as is currently intended?
I am very happy to discuss with Highlands and Islands Enterprise the specific request that Tavish Scott has made of that body. That is a constructive suggestion.
John Swinney met the oil and gas regulator recently. If memory serves me correctly, I am due to meet the regulator soon and would be happy to discuss that issue.
Obviously, we are concerned to learn of the developments at Sullom Voe. It is important to say that this will be an anxious time for the workforce and their families. The Government, as we always do in these situations, stands ready to provide support for affected employees through our partnership action for continuing employment initiative for responding to redundancy situations. More widely than that, we are fully committed, through our oil and gas jobs task force, to supporting the industry during challenging times.
I am sure that John Swinney or Fergus Ewing would be happy to meet Tavish Scott to discuss those issues in more detail.
Police Opinion Survey
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the findings of the first ever Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland officer and staff opinion survey. (S4F-02997)
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland have undertaken the first post-reform opinion survey of the entire police workforce. While there are some positive findings, there are also issues of concern and many areas for improvement.
Police Scotland will address the outcomes of the survey with a detailed action plan and there will be on-going scrutiny by the Scottish Police Authority to measure progress. Addressing the results of the survey will also be a key test within the assessment and appointment process of the new chief constable. It is important to say that we continue to thank all the dedicated members of our police service for ensuring the lowest level of crime in a generation.
Police officers and staff serve us all, and they put their lives on the line, as we saw so tragically this week with the death of PC Phillips, who is in our thoughts today.
Last week, the Scottish Police Federation said:
“You cannot deliver a world class police service purely on the good will of the men and women who work in it.”
However, the force-wide survey revealed that just 8 per cent of officers and staff thought that the national force was genuinely interested in their wellbeing. The First Minister surely cannot believe that that has nothing to do with the part that her Government played in rushing to create a top-down, target-led, centralised national force, can she?
To be fair to Alison McInnes, although we do not always agree on these things, she has an excellent record in raising police and justice issues. However, she could not have taken anything from my original answer that would have led her to the conclusion that the Government, the police and the Scottish Police Authority do not take the findings very seriously.
As I said, the survey is an important part of the process for measuring progress in an organisation that is still relatively new. Addressing the results of the survey will be a priority for the police, the SPA and the new chief constable.
I mentioned the action plan that will be developed by Police Scotland. There will be on-going scrutiny through the SPA’s governance structures, which will be led by its human resources and remuneration committee. Progress against the action plan will be a standing item for review at that committee. It may be worth while to point out to members that the areas that are identified in the action plan will be the subject of a further survey of a sample of the workforce in a year’s time, so that progress can be measured. A comparable full workforce survey will be undertaken in the summer of 2017, so the 2015 survey will provide a baseline on which we can measure improvements.
I hope that that reassures Alison McInnes that the results of the survey are being taken extremely seriously. I also hope that we can absolutely agree that our police service does a sterling job.
Alison McInnes was right to point out the tragic case of PC Phillips this week, which brought to all our minds just how much danger our police officers put themselves in in the line of duty. We all owe it to them to ensure that we provide the support that they thoroughly deserve.
The survey indicates that a major and direct contributor to the fall in morale and commitment is the increase in pension contributions, which is, of course, a reserved matter. Those are now 14.25 per cent of salary. Does the First Minister agree that that increase is a direct consequence of fewer officers south of the border contributing to the United Kingdom fund—currently, there are 14,500 fewer officers for England, which is to be regretted—and that there is now every reason for police pensions to be devolved?
I would like all the matters that currently lie with the Westminster Government to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Christine Grahame is certainly right to point out that respondents—49 per cent of them, I think—highlighted changes to their pension as one of the factors that was driving dissatisfaction. Obviously, we did not want to introduce some of the pension changes, but they required to go ahead because of the financial penalties that we would have faced for not doing so.
It is important that we look at the survey in the round and respond to all aspects of it so that we can ensure that we see significant and material improvement in the surveys that follow in the years to come.
One of the key reasons for police officers considering leaving the force has been the pace of change. Officers have stated that it was time to take stock. What cognisance has the Scottish Government taken of that in respect of new legislation that affects the police, including the provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that relate to police powers of detention, arrest and charging?
We take very careful cognisance of all those factors in deciding the content of any legislation. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which the member referred to, is, as she is aware, going through the parliamentary process, and many of the issues around the powers of the police, detention and time limits are subject to very robust and substantive debate in the Justice Committee. I am keeping a close eye on that. That is the proper process for determining those things.
We will reflect very carefully on the results of the survey. I will not repeat what the police and the Scottish Police Authority are going to do, but the survey results are being, and will continue to be, taken extremely seriously.
Refugee Crisis
To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s response to the refugee crisis. (S4F-03008)
The Scottish Government remains firmly committed to doing all that we can to support refugees. We have made an initial £1 million available to ensure that services across Scotland are prepared to deal with the arrival of refugees, and we are co-ordinating that work via the refugee task force, which will meet for the fourth time this afternoon. As members will have seen, the Minister for Europe and International Development, Humza Yousaf, visited Lesbos last weekend to meet refugees and aid agencies in person. I know that he is keen to share the learning from that visit with the task force later today.
The First Minister might be aware that I am leaving for Serbia tomorrow with Glasgow the Caring City, a charity that she knows well, to see what difference the 19 tonnes of aid that the people of Glasgow collected will make to the refugees and, I hope, to arrange further aid. Does she agree that the scenes that were just witnessed by Humza Yousaf and which I, unfortunately, expect to see in the Balkans highlight the need for the United Kingdom Government to hold out a hand of friendship to the many thousands of refugees and opt into the European Union relocation scheme?
I am sure that that sentiment will find support across the chamber. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the generosity that has been shown by people in Glasgow and, indeed, by people across the country in the face of what is a growing humanitarian crisis. I thank James Dornan for highlighting the tremendous contribution that Glasgow the Caring City is making to supporting refugees. As he says, it is a charity that I know well. It does sterling work and I am pleased that the Scottish Government has been able to provide the charity with £10,000 to assist with the transportation of aid to the Balkans.
I am sure that the member’s experience in Serbia will bring into sharp focus the suffering and the human tragedy of the refugee crisis in Europe. As I said, we remain firmly committed to doing all that we can to support refugees and hold out a hand of friendship. Although we welcome the change in the view of the UK Government that has taken place since this matter was last raised at First Minister’s question time, we will also continue to press the UK Government to participate in a co-ordinated EU relocation scheme.
“The Cost of the School Day"
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the report by the Child Poverty Action Group, “The Cost of the School Day”. (S4F-03003)
The report is important research and I welcome its publication. It outlines the difficulties that are faced by children from low-income households. It was exactly because of that issue that we launched the access to education fund in June last year, which has to date provided £3 million to just under 700 schools in Scotland to help their pupils overcome barriers to learning that are caused by poverty. Of course, we will consider carefully the recommendations that are made in the report and will continue to work with stakeholders to support schools to do all that they can to help all children and young people achieve their full potential.
The report highlights a number of areas that limit the educational opportunities within the school day and which can affect the attendance, health and wellbeing, confidence and, eventually, attainment of pupils from more deprived backgrounds. Other issues that affect attainment include the fact that pupils from more deprived backgrounds who rely on free school transport cannot attend after-school clubs or additional supported study sessions and the fact that wealthier families get their children into better-performing schools by moving into their catchment areas or, because they can afford the extra transport costs, using the placement request system.
We need a question, Mr Griffin.
What practical steps is the Scottish Government taking to respond to the report in order to open up access to the opportunities that I have just mentioned?
As I said in my initial answer, the main step that we have taken, which we took in response to these issues being raised last year, is the establishment of the access to education fund. That fund is designed to support schools to help children and young people overcome the barriers to learning that Mark Griffin has just outlined, which are very often caused by poverty. It might be worth considering some of the examples of the projects that have been funded. They include the purchase of technology for pupils at a school in Glasgow that also supports school family learning clubs; the provision of waterproof clothing to enable children at another school to take part in outdoor activities; the provision of transport for outdoor trips; and other aspects of support that help children to take part in extracurricular activities. The access for education fund is involved in a range of things.
The fund has been designed so that it is flexible and is able to respond to many such issues. We will consider the recent report carefully to see whether there are additional things that we need to do through that fund or in addition to that fund.
I do not mind saying that one of the things that worry me as we try to address these issues is the looming cuts to tax credits that are shamefully being introduced by the Conservative Government, which will affect perhaps 200,000 families with children in Scotland to the tune of about £3,000 a year and will worsen problems such as the ones that we are discussing. However, we will continue to do everything that we can to help children to overcome the barriers that are caused by poverty.
Budget 2014-15 (Underspend)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports from the Auditor General for Scotland that it underspent its budget by almost £350 million in 2014-15. (S4F-03000)
I welcome the fact that the Auditor General has—yet again—provided an unqualified audit opinion on the Scottish Government’s 2014-15 consolidated accounts. That has been the case in every year of this Administration.
The Deputy First Minister announced the provisional outturn for 2014-15 in June and that position has not changed. The full cash underspend for 2014-15 is being carried forward into the current financial year, 2015-16. The Government’s approach represents and will continue to represent sensible budgeting, reflecting fluctuations in cost and demand across the spending review period, and will ensure that there is no loss of spending power in Scotland.
In June 2009, the finance secretary announced an underspend of £31 million and said:
“Long gone are the days when hundreds of millions of pounds of Government money would be underspent each year, doing nothing to help communities across the country.”
What will those communities make of an underspend that is more than 10 times the amount in 2009?
It might be worth just giving a little bit more context and detail here—otherwise known as facts. [Interruption.]
Order.
Of the figure that Murdo Fraser cites, it is worth pointing out that about £150 million is what is called non-cash. That means that it cannot be spent on services—it can never be spent on services—because it represents differences in accounting estimates, for example in depreciation of assets.
The rest of the underspend comes about because the Government has to manage its budget within a context of, first, not legally being able to overspend and, secondly, not being able to borrow. We have to manage our budget through the year to make sure that we do not overshoot it. However, every single penny of the underspend that is capable of being spent is transferred into the next year and spent on public services. Not a penny of it—[Interruption.]
Order.
My Deputy First Minister is shouting that the Conservatives are fiscally illiterate. I could not possibly comment.
Not a single penny is lost to the public purse.
The final point that I want to make might be of particular interest to Murdo Fraser, because the amount that we underspent and can spend, and therefore carry forward, is 0.7 per cent of our fiscal departmental expenditure limit budget. The UK Government’s underspend—when we take out spending in devolved Administrations—amounts to 1.2 per cent of its fiscal budget, which means that the Scottish Government is much better at managing its money than Murdo Fraser’s Westminster colleagues.
Now that the First Minister has outed the Deputy First Minister, I remind him that he should not be making comments from a sedentary position.
Previous
General Question Time