Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01800)
I have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
The Scottish Government’s white paper compares Scotland’s growth rate with the growth rates of a selection of independent countries. If it were proved that Scots would be better off now had we matched the growth of those nations over the past 30 years, would that be a compelling reason to vote yes?
The compelling reason to vote yes is that we could mobilise the natural and human resources of Scotland to create a prosperous and just society in this country. That is the compelling reason to vote yes.
So, it is not the compelling reason that the First Minister had in his own white paper. That is interesting.
The First Minister’s white paper says that Scots would be better off, if we take the period 1977 to 2007. We asked the Scottish Parliament’s financial scrutiny unit to look at the past 30 years for which figures are available. The same comparison, examined over the past 30 years, actually shows that each and every Scot would be nearly £2,500 worse off. What made the First Minister hand pick the 30-year period from 1977 to 2007 rather than use the most up-to-date figures that are available?
Let us take the most up-to-date figures—figures that are part of the “Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland” statistics, which are generally accepted and officially noted by Government. They show that over the past five years, Scotland would have been £12 billion better off had we managed our own resources than we were under the London Government. That £12 billion is a great deal of money that could have been invested in the Scottish economy to promote Scottish jobs, to borrow less—which would have been a good thing—or to start the proceeds of an oil fund, as our colleagues across the North Sea in Norway did.
The belief that those resources would not have been used to the benefit of Scottish society is most extraordinary. As that information comes forward in the referendum campaign, people will see the opportunity to create a more just and prosperous society for an independent Scotland.
That is just so much noise—the First Minister did not answer the question that I asked him. With respect, his white paper chose those dates. It is incumbent on the First Minister to explain why so much of his prospectus is based on an argument that bears no scrutiny.
The First Minister is asking the people of Scotland to trust his white paper. However, it has only one page on Scotland’s finances and it projects finances for just one year. It looks back to a period that favours the First Minister’s case, when the overwhelming evidence is that we would, over the past 10, 20 and 30 years, have been worse off. In his own words, he said that we would be £900 better off, but the truth is that over the past 30 years, by his own rationale, we would have been £2,500 worse off.
That, of course, is the case where there are figures. Where, however, are the price tags for renationalising the Royal Mail, for transformational childcare or for his high-speed rail proposal? No one is suggesting that those are bad things. [Interruption.] Even in the real world, no one thinks that childcare and a rail link are bad things. However, we think that we need to know how we are going to pay for them. Every family in the country understands that. So, I say: “Go on. Don’t just tell us what you are going to propose. Give us just one—one!—of those price tags and let us see whether it is real.”
No one will suggest that those are bad things, but on the basis of its school meals vote, Labour would vote against them anyway.
Let us take any time period that Johann Lamont wants. It is estimated that over the period 1980 to 2011-12—the most recent period for which figures are available—the United Kingdom ran an annual net fiscal deficit of 3.2 per cent of gross domestic product. With our share of Scotland’s resources and North Sea revenue, Scotland would over that period have run an average annual net fiscal surplus of 0.2 per cent of GDP. Those are the figures for the years since 1980; I have already given Johann Lamont the figures for the past five years.
According to the latest figures that we have available, Scotland’s relative fiscal surplus in 2011-12 was £4.4 billion, or £824 per head. That is the amount by which we would have been better off had Scotland been running its own resources.
Johann Lamont says that she does not think that the white paper is ambitious enough, including on childcare, in particular. The white paper is ambitious because it wants to transform childcare in this country, which would in a parliamentary session cost £700 million. The white paper argues that that can come about because of the revenues that will grow from increasing female participation in the workforce by 6 per cent. If we stay within the UK, we will never be able to afford that because the money will go to George Osborne in the London Treasury and—believe me—he is not thinking of giving extra money to Scotland. He, as Margaret Thatcher did before him, is working out how to take money away from Scotland—as long as nobody finds out.
First of all, if we are going to look at this week’s vote, one can only presume that the Scottish National Party Government did not want transformational support for childcare, because it voted it down.
Secondly, whatever figures the First Minister has just quoted, he is no longer defending his own approach justifying support for independence in his white paper. I did not say that the challenge for the white paper is that it is not ambitious enough; I said that it does not match its claims with any figures to make it credible and believable.
The First Minister did not answer the question on prices, but what the Government cannot price the Parliament can. It would cost £1.16 billion for Royal Mail and £1.2 billion for childcare, but there is no explanation of how that would be paid for. As for the rail link, even the Scottish Parliament information centre cannot price that. For those of us who live in the real world, a shopping list without a price list is just a wish list, and according to the First Minister’s own figures we would have even less money to spend on those things. The First Minister has asked us to publish an alternative to his white paper, but is it not the case that the real alternative to the white paper is called the truth? [Interruption.]
Order!
Right. Let us try again with regard to childcare. The white paper outlines that in the first parliamentary term there will be a transformation in childcare with 1,100 hours for three-year-olds and four-year-olds. We believe that that will increase female participation in the workforce by 6 per cent, which will bring us to Scandinavian levels. We also point out that it would release to the Scottish exchequer £700 million, because as people come back into the workforce they will pay income tax, national insurance and VAT. That fund will accrue to the Scottish exchequer, whereas right now it goes down to London. That is why under a fixed budget it is difficult to afford these things.
Johann Lamont should know that, because earlier this week she lodged an amendment that could not be afforded. Her amendment would have cost £100 million when £100 million would not be available in either year to pay for it. She then said that, in order to finance it, she would not go ahead with free school meals; she would deprive the people of Scotland of free school meals for primaries 1 to 3. I have not even mentioned the cuts in business rates, but they were overtaken by Iain Gray’s denial of them. Many of us think that that was a fundamental mistake by the Labour Party that will cost it dear.
I accept—as I did when I looked at the blank faces on the Labour back benches and saw how worried they were about the votes on Tuesday—that, when I say that, I am, of course, being partial. Therefore, let us hear an impartial commentary.
“But despite this win-win situation, Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont still opposed the move”
on school meals.
“Labour now find themselves opposing a move welcomed by just about anyone with anything to say about education and the eradication of poverty.
Labour are now at loggerheads with charities and campaigners like the EIS teaching union, the STUC, the Unison union and Save the Children, not to mention the Child Poverty Action Group.”
That is yesterday’s Daily Record editorial, which just about sums up the “something for nothing” position of Johann Lamont.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01804)
When I next meet the Prime Minister, it will not be in Scotland, by the sound of it, because he is too posh and too unpopular.
I thought that the Prime Minister’s performance yesterday showed a degree of humour and self-deprecation that is wholly foreign to the First Minister. Perhaps he could take note.
This week, we learned that the head of Historic Scotland left her post, after just 30 months, with a £300,000 pay-off, plus pension. That is a huge amount of public money, and it comes straight from the Scottish Government’s coffers. Can the First Minister tell us which, if any, of his ministers cleared such a payment?
Agreements on settlements and compromise agreements are settled in the normal way by the civil service. They are not a matter for political discretion; they are a matter for the management of the civil service, as is the case with any other responsible organisation. I am absolutely certain that Ruth Davidson is not going to seriously argue that ministers should interfere in a political sense in such matters.
I take it that the First Minister is saying that no minister of his Government signed off the deal nor should have. Why is that the case? The rules on the issue are pretty clear. Those rules, as published by the Scottish Government, state:
“Ministerial clearance must be obtained ... in relation to any potentially high profile cases.”
By any definition, a quango chief being given a £300,000 pay-off after just two and a half years in the job is a very high profile case, and it is one of a long list of pay-offs that have cost this country £56 million in the past two years.
The Scottish taxpayer is footing the bill for those extravagant golden goodbyes and is entitled to some straight answers. Therefore, given the rules, why was the pay-off not approved by a Government minister? Who approved it? Does the First Minister really believe that anyone who voluntarily leaves a job after just 30 months should be walking away with £300,000 of taxpayers’ money?
The settlement agreed within the civil service involved the facts and circumstances of the case. The only justification for ministerial intervention would have been if something were seriously wrong with the process—[Interruption.]
Order.
The reason for ministerial intervention would be if there were some partiality.
I will make one point to Ruth Davidson that perhaps illustrates the dangers of raising staff and personnel matters in this format. She is perfectly entitled to do so, but there is a danger. She gave the impression that the individual concerned had been in post for a short period of time. She ignored the fact that, as I understand it, the individual had worked in the civil service for a generation.
In these circumstances, people should not necessarily consider only the latest posting. That is why these agreements and compromise agreements are best done with regard to best personnel practice. I say with great respect that, in terms of fairness and natural justice, such things should not be conducted through ministerial or Opposition political intervention.
We have constituency questions, first from Liam McArthur.
The First Minister will be aware of the news this week that administrators have been unable to find a buyer for the Orkney-based jewellery company, Ortak. As a result, around 115 jobs are under threat, including more than two dozen in my constituency.
I am grateful to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and to Highlands and Islands Enterprise for their co-operation in recent days. However, I ask the First Minister to confirm that every effort will be made to give the staff affected all the support that they need. Will he also agree to facilitate any reasonable bid to take on some or all of the vitally important manufacturing roles that are currently based in the Hatston estate in Kirkwall?
The answer is yes to both questions. As the constituency member acknowledged, Fergus Ewing has been deeply involved in this case, and every effort will continue to be mobilised to get a more satisfactory outcome. If the member has any concerns, ideas or thoughts about initiatives, Fergus Ewing’s door will be very open to those suggestions.
I am glad that the member acknowledged the efforts of the industry minister, and I repeat that the answer is yes to both parts of his question.
In today’s The Herald, we read of the case of consultant psychiatrist Dr Jane Hamilton, who is a doctor at St John’s hospital in my region. Dr Hamilton has bravely spoken out about the attempt by her employers to gag her from raising concerns about the care that was being provided to women in the unit where she worked.
Dr Hamilton has written to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing on several occasions, asking him to examine her case independently, but to date her request has been declined. Will the First Minister step in in this case and will he condemn the use of gagging clauses in cases in which national health service staff raise concerns about patient care and safety?
I will point out two things that are at the heart of the issue.
First, there has already been an independent investigation into the unit in question. It was undertaken by Dr Margaret Oates, the consultant psychiatrist at Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, and it reported in 2012. I will not go through the full range of the findings of that independent investigation for Neil Findlay; suffice it to say that there was an extremely satisfactory report. The independent investigation was undertaken by a consultant physician of high standing outwith the Scottish national health service and it found, for example, that the mother and baby unit was staffed by clinicians with the expected level of specialist knowledge and skills. There was no evidence to support the allegations that the mother and baby unit and the community service were dangerous, unsafe or dysfunctional.
Secondly, the health secretary has been absolutely explicit on the issue of gagging orders. He wrote to health boards on 22 February last year, reminding them that confidentiality clauses are not to be used to suppress the reporting of concerns about practice in the NHS in Scotland. Obviously, I cannot comment on the individual compromise agreement, but NHS Lothian has made it clear that it refers specifically to the protected issues. Neil Findlay is shaking his head, but unless he has seen that compromise agreement he should not dispute that. NHS Lothian has said that the protected issues, which include concerns about patient welfare, bullying and other issues in the national health service, are explicitly referred to in any compromise agreement. If that is the case—if those issues are referred to specifically within any compromise agreement—I am sure that Neil Findlay will be satisfied.
I will ask the health secretary to seek to ensure—if he can, as such things are a matter between the individual and the health board—that there is such an explicit reference to what is protected by law in terms of what people are able to say. If that reference is in the compromise agreement, or if it could be expressed differently, I hope that Neil Findlay will be satisfied. He should not dispute NHS Lothian’s claim unless he actually knows that such an explicit reference is not contained in the compromise agreement. I will ask the health secretary to check the matter and to report back to Neil Findlay.
Serious Sexual Offences
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to deal with perpetrators of serious sexual offences. (S4F-01808)
We have strengthened the law around sex crimes considerably by introducing the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, which modernised the law in Scotland. We have also strengthened the sexual offences prevention order and risk of harm order regimes in Scotland by allowing the imposition of positive obligations where that is deemed appropriate by the courts.
The current Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill seeks to remove the routine requirement for corroboration, which can be a barrier to the prosecution of sexual crime, as the member should know. In addition, the Crown Office has developed a team of expert prosecutors in the national sexual crimes unit, which specialises in the investigation and prosecution of serious sexual crimes in Scotland. Police Scotland has improved the investigation of rape and other sexual crimes by setting up the new national rape task force, the rape and sexual crime external advisory group, which is designed to inform and improve the investigation of rape.
When Margaret Mitchell considers that range of initiatives that we have created, she will see that this Government, in its term of office, has treated that hugely serious matter extremely seriously.
I thank the First Minister for that comprehensive response.
Serious sexual offences are among the most heinous crimes that can be committed, and the traumatic effects on the victims can last a lifetime. The First Minister believes that the abolition of corroboration will help to tackle the problem, but a host of expert opinion disagrees. What cannot be disputed is that the abolition of corroboration will not help the low conviction rate in serious sexual offences cases that come to court because those cases have already met the corroboration threshold.
I therefore ask the First Minister to support today the introduction of a pilot scheme for independent legal advice for rape victims at the point when sensitive medical and personal information is requested. I proposed, as an amendment to the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, such a pilot based on research carried out by Rape Crisis Scotland, which found that the majority of victims are unaware—
Can we get a question, Ms Mitchell?
I am coming to the question, Presiding Officer.
That means that totally irrelevant information is used to discredit the victim, which decreases the chances of a conviction. While the debate on corroboration continues, will the First Minister act now and introduce a similar pilot, which is estimated to cost only £20,000, to help tackle conviction rates for rape?
I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to look seriously at that suggestion. However, Margaret Mitchell is wrong to suggest that the argument for changes to corroboration is based on increasing the conviction rate. The Lord Advocate said that explicitly at the Justice Committee, as she must know.
The argument is that many cases do not get into court because of the general law of corroboration. An example relates to Murdo Fraser’s demands just before Christmas to know why a serious offence was not prosecuted in Scotland when the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service had already made it clear that, because of the general rule of corroboration, there was an insufficient basis on which to pursue a prosecution.
That is why, if the Conservative Party is to be taken seriously about such matters, we cannot have a situation in which it raises cases that cannot come to court because of the general rule of corroboration and then says that something must be done about making sure that there is justice for rape victims in Scotland. The two matters must be squared.
Economy (Impact of United Kingdom Budget Reductions)
To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the potential impact on the Scottish economy of a reported additional £25 billion reduction in spending planned by the United Kingdom Government. (S4F-01803)
We will make a very serious examination of the latest threat from George Osborne. We know that the Tory party does not have any idea about that because its spokesman on television last night could not give any idea whatsoever of what would happen if there was a further £25 billion cut in public spending.
The choice facing the people of Scotland is clear: it is between the no campaign’s obsession with austerity and this Government’s vision, founded on a nation with the principles of fairness and prosperity.
A suggested Tory attack on vulnerable Scots is to discriminate against young people by withdrawing altogether housing benefit from the under-25s, which is something that I believe an independent Scotland would never consider. What assessment can the Scottish Government make of the potential impact that that Tory plan would have on young Scots, including the 5,200 under-25s in Glasgow who I represent and the 33,000 across Scotland who rely on housing benefit? Will it make urgent representations to the UK Government opposing those plans, which, along with the UK Government’s bedroom tax, will only lead to further poverty, fuel family tensions and exacerbate homelessness?
We are deeply concerned about this latest threat to the welfare system and the effect that the measure could have on more than 30,000 under-25s who receive housing benefit in Scotland. Let us remember that the rationale for the bedroom tax and the attack on housing benefit has been the runaway costs of housing benefit in the high-pressure housing areas of the south-east of England; it was not the position of housing benefit in Scotland that led to this assault. Through the measures that we have taken we will continue to support people in Scotland who are suffering from repeated cuts to welfare benefits.
I hope that, if indeed this threat to housing benefit for the under-25s comes to pass, all the people in the chamber who do not believe that we should control the welfare system in Scotland—not that we could control it, which does not seem to be in dispute—might have cause to change their mind in 2014.
Did the First Minister see today’s article in The Scotsman by Liberal Democrat Tavish Scott in which he said that George Osborne’s £25 billion mistake will seal the fate of the Conservative Party and hasten the election of a Labour Government? Given that the First Minister’s whole referendum strategy is based on having a Tory Government in London, how will he scare the Scottish people when they are faced with the prospect of a Labour Government that will boost employment, freeze energy prices and provide the resources for a massive expansion of childcare?
Malcolm Chisholm and I have been around politics for a long time—long enough to remember his resignation from a Labour Government in which he was a minister because it was attacking benefits for single parents. I think that he lasted about a year before he realised that his dreams had been betrayed and he had to resign.
The Liberals’ fate is already sealed, so Tavish Scott’s forecast of the sealing of the Tory fate should be taken seriously, because he speaks from personal experience in his party. However, the Labour Party’s fate will be sealed by the reaction of Ed Balls to the £25 billion cuts, which was not to say that there should be no cuts but to say, “Yes, Labour will do that as well. We’ll just make different cuts.” Perhaps, at some point, he will tell Malcolm Chisholm what those cuts will be and then Malcolm will have to resign again.
National 4 and 5 Qualifications
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that schools, pupils and teachers are adequately prepared for the new national 4 and 5 qualifications. (S4F-01801)
Yes. The Scottish Government, the Scottish Qualifications Authority, Education Scotland and others have provided unprecedented levels of support for curriculum for excellence and the new qualifications. That includes more than £5 million of additional funding, two extra in-service days to help teachers to prepare for the new qualifications, full course materials for each of the 95 national 4 and 5 courses and specific events for thousands of teachers. That said, we always stand ready to provide more help if needed to ensure that the new qualifications are delivered successfully.
Alan McKenzie of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association told the Edinburgh Evening News this week that teachers lack confidence in the SQA, and that there are
“complications and confusion around verification, assessment demands that are impossible to adequately meet and a continuing lack of support materials”.
He said:
“It would be quite wrong to dismiss the reports … of problems as simply anxiety or ritualistic moaning.”
For the sake of all young people in Scotland who face those exams and the future of our radical reform of the curriculum, which the Labour Party started, will the First Minister acknowledge those concerns and take immediate action?
Nobody has dismissed any concerns. In fact, I heard the ministers say exactly the opposite. That is why the unprecedented level of support has been put in place.
On 3 January, Ken Cunningham, the general secretary of School Leaders Scotland, said:
“The preparation, consultation: there’s been more than I can ever remember. The amount of effort that’s gone into this knocks the others into the corner”.
It is interesting to hear Kezia Dugdale quoting teachers unions. If only the Labour Party had listened to the teachers unions and decided to support free school meals for primary 1 to 3.
This week, Alan McKenzie of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association also said:
“For the sake of both the young people of Scotland and the future of a radical curriculum reform, please listen to us and let us work together to fix the problem.”
Will the First Minister attend to those pleas? Will he listen to teachers, help to fix the problem and give pupils in Scotland the chance that they deserve to get qualifications, educational training and employment?
Speaking on the radio this week, Alasdair Allan, the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages, said that we will continue to listen to teachers to ensure that they get further help if needed and that any issues are addressed. That answers Mary Scanlon’s question.
Childcare Provision
To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to increase childcare provision. (S4F-01805)
As I announced to the chamber on Tuesday, we will increase the number of two-year-olds in childcare and start the process of expanding childcare among that age group to approximately 15 per cent of the total and then 27 per cent in August 2015. That is about 15,000 children.
That is an ambitious plan and, of course, it goes beyond the demand and claim from the Labour front bench of childcare for 10,000 children. [Interruption.] Yes, Kezia Dugdale said that on Radio Clyde and Johann Lamont said it in the chamber—10,000 children. We are expanding childcare to 15,000 children in the measures that were announced on Tuesday and I am sure that, in their heart of hearts, members right round the chamber will give that as warm a welcome as Willie Rennie so graciously did on Tuesday.
Does the First Minister agree that, when Save the Children, the Educational Institute of Scotland, Unison, Shelter, the Church of Scotland and the Child Poverty Action Group all say that free school meals are a key measure in tackling child poverty, politicians of all parties should listen?
I have already quoted the Daily Record; it is absolutely right.
At this stage, the Labour Party should just accept that a broad coalition of people who are interested in the welfare of children in Scotland support free school meals. Sooner rather than later, the Labour Party is going to have to totally reverse its position and accept that it was wrong to do what it did this week. If it does not do that, the damage that will be done to the party at grass-roots level in Scotland will approach the damage that was done by the bedroom tax and other measures; perhaps it will compare only with the damage that has been done by its alliance with the Tory party in the referendum campaign.
I say to Johann Lamont, who is in a ridiculous position: for goodness’ sake, reverse what you did, apologise for voting against free school meals on Tuesday and get behind the broad coalition that backs the children of Scotland.
Previous
General Question Time