First Minister’s Question Time
We now move to First Minister’s question time. I call Johann Lamont.
This feels like a double shift—[Interruption.]
Can we have Ms Lamont’s microphone on? [Interruption.] Your card is not in, Ms Lamont.
You can see that this is a well-oiled machine.
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00390)
I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
We now know that the First Minister’s preference is that the people of Scotland will be asked to decide on Scotland’s constitutional future some time in the autumn in 2014. Nobody can be in any doubt about what a momentous decision that will be for the people of Scotland. What will the First Minister do to ensure that we and all of Scotland will have confidence in the timing, governance and scrutiny of the referendum?
I refer Johann Lamont to the amendment that we lodged to her motion for this morning’s debate, which states that in a couple of weeks we will publish a consultation paper for all Scotland—that includes political parties, voluntary organisations, the third sector, and all the people of Scotland—to make known their views. It will set out the terms, the procedures and the timetable for the referendum that we propose—the referendum, of course, for which we received an overwhelming mandate in the recent Scottish elections.
I noted the amendment that the First Minister lodged, and I have to say that I was disturbed by its tone and its prescriptive nature, and by the rejection of the genuinely made offer to come together to build consensus.
Last May, the First Minister told the Parliament that, despite the SNP’s majority in the Parliament, he does not have a monopoly of wisdom. Let me humbly offer him some of my wisdom. The fact of the matter is that his being able to drive something through the process does not mean that it is in his or in Scotland’s interests for him to do so. It would not be wise, in my view, for Parliament to go ahead with a referendum process that was underlined by a concern—even if it was a misconception—that it was somehow fixed. He must surely understand that he must dispel the perception that he is acting in the interests of the SNP and not those of Scotland.
I repeat my offer from earlier this week and this morning: will the First Minister not just meet party leaders to talk, but work with them to achieve consensus on the way forward for a referendum process that is fair and beyond question?
I think that Johann Lamont might well, in certain respects at least, be pleasantly surprised when she sees the consultation document. It will be in the interests not just of the governing party, but of the Parliament and Scotland—as I think will be clear from our consultation document—that the process is clear and transparent, and that it does this nation proud. When she sees the document, she will be reasonably surprised and perhaps encouraged—certainly by its tone.
I disagree with Johann Lamont in that it is extraordinary to talk about the Government being “prescriptive”. I heard representatives of the third sector—John Downie of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and Ian Galloway of the Church of Scotland—say explicitly on the radio this morning that they do not want politicians to foreclose on the options to be put before the people. However, Johann Lamont’s motion did exactly that in relation to the questions that should be asked.
I assure Johann Lamont that the Government is aware of its responsibility not just to the Parliament but to the people of Scotland. We will bring forward a genuine consultation document. It will certainly put forward our views, but the consultation will be prepared to listen not just to the political parties in the Parliament but to people across the spectrum of Scottish society, so that we can have a referendum of which we can be proud and a debate of which we can be proud. All people will know that they have had their full opportunity to contribute to the process on the most important decision that has faced the nation for 300 years.
The difficulty is that the First Minister does not know how to build consensus. As the leader of the Opposition, I ought not to be pleasantly surprised in a fortnight’s time; I ought to be part of the process of shaping the thinking on what the referendum will say.
I accept that the First Minister might not put a high price on the wisdom of the Labour Party’s leader, but I reflect on the wisdom of others. On the prospect of a multi-option ballot, Professor Qvortrup told us that
“Two questions on a ballot where people are asked to vote on both options is simply not feasible. There is a good chance that you would end up not knowing what people really want.”
Those who argue for a change to the devolution settlement want the union to work, whereas the First Minister wants to break it up. Surely he agrees that we need clarity on the result. Instead of resisting the United Kingdom Government’s offer to give legal clarity, surely he should agree with his fellow nationalist Jim Sillars, who said:
“If the Scotland Act, as it does, refuses to give Holyrood powers over the constitution it cannot, therefore, lawfully hold a referendum on independence.”
Surely the First Minister agrees that we can resolve this without rancour. We should recognise the consensus that has been built and reinforced by his Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, who said:
“The SNP, as it happens, has always said that our preferred option is a straight question, yes or no to independence.”
We seem to have agreement on that. We do not need to muddy the waters—all four parties agree that it should be a yes or no question. The First Minister has said that he will consult, but will he listen to and act on what he hears?
The Deputy First Minister said exactly what the SNP has said for a number of years—of course we prefer the independence question, which will be on the ballot paper. However, as I said after re-election, we do not have a monopoly on wisdom, which is precisely why we will listen to civic Scotland’s point of view. That contrasts markedly with the Labour motion, which referred to wanting to talk to civic Scotland but rejected one of the arguments that civic Scotland makes. We will listen and we will not prejudge what people have to say.
One of my problems with the words that Johann Lamont says in the chamber—I have no doubt that they are said genuinely—is the extent to which Labour is in cahoots with the Conservative Government at Westminster, which is now clear. I am a great student of body language. In the earlier debate, I watched Labour members every time the Conservatives said that they are standing shoulder to shoulder with them, and I saw a lot of discomfiture. There will be a lot more of that as we see the extent of the claims of Labour members’ Westminster colleagues about how they have worked hand in hand with the Tory Government to issue diktats to this Parliament and the people of Scotland.
I say to Johann Lamont that there is no difficulty whatever with a section 30 order. The difficulty is in the strings that the Prime Minister wants to attach to the order. Surely members of this Parliament—of all places—should agree that the referendum must be built here in Scotland. It must be led by this Parliament and produced in dialogue with civic Scotland, and the process must go forward to give us a debate and, I hope, a conclusion of which the nation can be proud.
The problem with the First Minister is that he offers a false prospectus: he says that the choice is independence or the Tories. Neither of those is something that Scotland particularly wants. The debate has to be conducted in terms that recognise that Scottish Labour has a positive vision for Scotland inside the United Kingdom.
I will offer the First Minister some advice. A signal of his recognition that he does not have a monopoly of wisdom would be not simply to find people who agree with him, and welcome the fact that they agree with him; it is to work with people who do not agree with him. That is the challenge to which he must he rise.
When the decision is made, depending on the will of the Scottish people, Scotland will separate from, or remain within, the United Kingdom. The day after the referendum, all of us in this chamber—indeed, every Scot—will have a responsibility to unite and to work together to make Scotland the best that it can be, whatever the constitutional arrangement. Will the First Minister accept his responsibility to be a national leader on the calls for us to come together on the process of the referendum, and to ensure that he is not operating simply as a party leader? Will he deliver and play a part in a free and fair referendum that everyone in this country can trust and will accept the day after the vote?
I welcome part of that question, because it contained sentiments of which I very much approve. Our amendment to Johann Lamont’s motion today talks about consultation of all the people of Scotland: I assure Labour members that that absolutely includes the Labour Party. When we publish the consultation document, some of the fears that Johann Lamont has expressed will be seen not to be strongly based.
There is another issue on which I agree with Johann Lamont. As we agree the process, I look forward to our getting on to the arguments that matter. I do not agree with the view that was expressed the Labour Party today that independence and devolution of powers to this Parliament are opposites. I campaigned with the late Donald Dewar in 1997 on the prospectus of increasing power for Scotland. The two issues are not opposites; they are part of a continuum. The decision of the people of Scotland was over how far to go in accruing powers to the Parliament. Powers affect what we can and cannot do in Scotland.
I have absolutely no doubt that Johann Lamont is as fiercely concerned as I am with levels of child poverty and the statistics that we have seen this week, but she must acknowledge that welfare reform at Westminster right now threatens to undo all the recent progress on child poverty. How on earth can we reconcile that acknowledgement with not realising that we require the powers?
Earlier in the debate, I heard the question asked about what the SNP is going to do about nuclear weapons in Scotland. I say to Sarah Boyack that the only basis on which the people of Scotland will be able to remove weapons of mass destruction from our soil will be our having the powers that an independent Parliament will bring.
I have every interest in ensuring that we have consensus on the process, and I will make every effort for us to achieve it. As is, I hope, every other member in the chamber, I am anxious to get to the nub of the arguments and to let the Scottish people decide their own future. The future will involve powers for this Parliament to create a prosperous economy and a just society.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00381)
I have no immediate plans to meet him, but I spoke to him on Tuesday.
The First Minister spoke this morning about his desire for consensus on the referendum process, but in the next breath said that that consensus had to bow to his majority. In an answer to Ms Lamont, he said that he had no problem with a section 30 order—but without any strings attached.
Let us look at one of the strings to which he so objects. The First Minister has cast doubt on the integrity and impartiality of those who serve on the Electoral Commission, and he now wants to hand-pick his own team to oversee the separation referendum. He might like to think that he is the team captain, but that does not mean that he also gets to pick the referee.
Does the First Minister want to repeat the comments that were made in his name by his official spokesman to the press this week? Does he want to stand up now and impugn the reputation, impartiality and neutrality of the commissioners and the Electoral Commission?
I am not impugning the integrity of anyone in the chamber or outside it. I have two things to say. First, I read out this morning the feelings of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on that very matter and said that I approved of what it had to say. I know that Ruth Davidson does not always take to heart what the STUC has to say, but perhaps she should read those wise words.
Secondly, this Government has involved the Electoral Commission in, for example, the local government elections in Scotland, so it is clear that we are not impugning its integrity. I ask Ruth Davidson to wait until the consultation paper comes out. If she is dissatisfied with what it says, we will give the representations that she—like the Labour Party—will be able to make to the Government a full and frank hearing. I think that many of the difficulties that she thinks are apparent will not be as difficult as she feels them to be.
On the strings attached, it is a question of principle. There is certainly no objection to a section 30 order on a legally binding referendum—I think that we have pointed out in one of our documents that that route could be pursued.
However, there is a great difficulty with the idea that we can have a section 30 order only if we meet certain criteria. The difficulty is, of course, that if any of us in this Parliament were to concede the principle of somebody else, another Parliament, dictating when an election is to be held, who votes in that election and how it is organised, we would surely nullify the whole point of the democracy of the Scottish people and their ability to select in this Parliament, as they have done, parties that have a mandate—it is not just the SNP that supported the referendum process in the election; the Greens do, too—to pursue that opinion.
That does not exclude the opinion of everybody else in Scotland: on the contrary, we will have a process that is open and transparent, and deeply consultative. However, that means that the decision must lie in Scotland and not elsewhere.
I suggest that much of that ground was given when the SNP voted for the Scotland Act 1998, which reserved the constitutional issue in its entirety.
I would like to get back to the question that I originally asked the First Minister. It was reported in the press on Wednesday—I quote from The Press and Journal—that
“First Minister Alex Salmond’s official spokesman said the organisation”
—the Electoral Commission—
“should be barred because it has political appointees on its board”.
I am glad that the First Minister acknowledged in his answer to me that he voted to extend the Electoral Commission’s role in Scotland and that the SNP voted to set it up.
The SNP has also bemoaned the fact that the commission was not around to report on the referendum in 1979. I believe that the SNP was delighted when its former MP and MSP, and our former Presiding Officer, was appointed as a commissioner, so why does the First Minister not trust the Electoral Commission now? His accusations raise serious doubts about whether he really wants a legal, fair and decisive referendum. If he has any real evidence against the impartiality of the Electoral Commission or its commissioners, will he produce it?
It is always best to listen to the first answer before asking the second question. I repeat that I am not impugning the integrity of the Electoral Commission or anyone else.
I really think that Ruth Davidson should consult the STUC’s statement yesterday, in which it said that it wants
“an independent body in Scotland ... tasked with the responsibility of making recommendations on the process and conduct of the referendum”.
The crucial point that Ruth Davidson seems to miss is that when we involved the Electoral Commission in the process of local government in Scotland, it became accountable in that sense to this Parliament. If she pursues that line of accountability and holds that thought, and waits for the consultation document in which she will get a full chance to participate along with everyone else, perhaps she will find that her fears on the matter can be somewhat lessened.
Lastly, I say gently—some ageist remarks were made in the earlier debate—that not everybody has as clear a recollection of the 1979 referendum as, unfortunately, I have. I do not think that, in citing the 1979 referendum, which was rigged by Westminster, any of the anti-independence parties is on the strongest ground on which they could stand.
Is the First Minister aware that, on Monday, more than 700 employees of the W J Harte construction company in Bothwell, in my constituency, discovered that the company had gone into administration, putting all those vital jobs at risk? It appears that the company, which has a long and successful history, was taken over a few years ago by a venture capitalist and that, since that time, the company has gone from being in healthy profit with a turnover of more than £100 million a year to going into receivership without warning, with the bank refusing to extend its credit although the company directors left at the end of last year with substantial pay-offs. Does the First Minister recognise the devastating impact that the situation will have on my constituency? Will he agree to arrange a meeting with an appropriate Government minister for me and my Westminster colleague, Jim Hood MP, to discuss what avenues are available to protect the workforce who are affected by this horrendous situation?
Yes. I am aware of the situation and its serious nature, and I agree to have such a meeting. I also advise Michael McMahon that Fergus Ewing, who is the relevant minister, will meet the administrators at 12.45 today to discuss the situation in detail. I see from Michael McMahon’s comments that he may have more information to bring to the discussions. We would welcome that and I will ensure that that ministerial meeting is held as early as possible.
Independence Referendum
3. To ask the First Minister whether it remains the Scottish Government’s position to hold a referendum on independence in the second half of the current parliamentary session. (S4F-00387)
When Joe FitzPatrick lodged his question, little did he think that events would have moved on in terms of the debate over the past few days—so the answer to the question can only be, “Yes.”
I thank the First Minister for his answer. I am glad that he is following the wishes of the Scottish people rather than the demands of a group of old Etonians in London.
Today’s papers report that David Cameron and Ed Miliband are in 100 per cent agreement on the issue of stopping equality for Scotland. This Tory-Labour alliance has been busy conspiring in Westminster to gerrymander the vote, with Lord Foulkes seeming to suggest that supporting a Scottish football team is a good enough reason to be allowed to vote in the referendum. Does the First Minister agree with the words of the late Bashir Ahmad, that
“it isn’t important where you come from, what matters is where we are going together as a nation”?
Does the First Minister agree that the attitude of the Labour-Tory alliance in London is a perfect example of why Scotland needs the full powers of an independent nation, so that decisions about the future of our country can be taken by those—the people of Scotland—who care most about our country?
Joe FitzPatrick did well to mention Bashir Ahmad, who was one of the finest men I have ever known. The phrase—his phrase—which was deployed many times, but was deeply felt, is one of the finest phrases:
“it isn’t important where you come from, what matters is where we are going together as a nation”.
I know how uncomfortable this makes Labour members in this Parliament, so I will not belabour the point, except to say that a Labour leader at Westminster who gets a response from a Conservative Prime Minister saying that he is 100 per cent in agreement probably has a reasonably short timeframe for his term in office.
Double Jeopardy
4. To ask the First Minister what action the Crown Office has taken in response to legislative changes relating to double jeopardy. (S4F-00392)
The Scottish Government and this Parliament brought into force exceptions to the rule on double jeopardy in late November. The Lord Advocate has asked the Solicitor General for Scotland to review cases that may be prosecuted under those newly established exceptions to the rule. That review is on-going. Once it is completed, contact will be made with the victims or families of victims in the cases that have been reviewed.
Following the conviction and jailing of two men for the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, I want to raise the case of Surjit Singh Chhokar, who was brutally stabbed to death while visiting his girlfriend. No one has ever been jailed for his murder and the family still awaits any form of justice. The Stephen Lawrence case shows the impact that new evidence and technology can have in delivering justice. I have no doubt that the Crown Office will re-examine cases such as that of Surjit Singh Chhokar, but will the First Minister do what is in his power to ensure that no stone is left unturned in the search for justice for the Chhokar family?
That is a serious issue for Scotland. Obviously, every member has huge sympathy for Mr Chhokar’s family. The Scottish Government has brought into force exemptions to the rule against double jeopardy; the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 provides that it is possible to retry acquitted persons in very serious cases if there is new and compelling evidence. Consideration of specific cases that might meet the criteria under the 2011 act is, and must be, a matter for the Crown. At the time of the announcement of the setting up of the cold case unit, the Solicitor General for Scotland, whom the Lord Advocate has asked to review and prioritise cases that might be prosecuted under the act, stated that
“The prosecution service is committed to the pursuit of criminals who have avoided detection for murder.”
The member will understand that, as a politician, I must be extremely careful in what I say on such matters. All of us should have faith in the ability of Scotland’s independent prosecutors to ensure that investigations and prosecutions are progressed in appropriate cases.
When it is in the interests of justice to reopen such cases, that is clearly the right thing to do, but it requires time and effort to do it properly. What resource has been made available to the Crown Office to examine any new evidence? Can the First Minister reassure potential new witnesses that such evidence will be considered fully and investigated properly?
I assure Lewis Macdonald that the Lord Advocate and prosecutors have all the resources that they require to pursue cases from the cold case unit. Although it is not my function as a politician to interfere in the process, we have absolute assurance that the prosecutors have the resources that they require to pursue those cases. Every member should trust our independent prosecutors. They have the resources to do the job and they shall do what is in the interests of justice, given the new powers that the Parliament has given them.
Breast Implants
5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s most recent estimate is of the number of women in Scotland who have received breast implants manufactured by PIP. (S4F-00391)
Where we have records, there is no record of PIP silicone breast implants having been used by the national health service in Scotland, but NHS boards are doing thorough checks to make absolutely sure and to give confirmation of that. The Scottish Government does not hold information about the number of Scottish women who could have received PIP implants in the independent healthcare sector in Scotland or elsewhere. However, my officials estimate that in the region of 2,500 to perhaps 4,000 Scottish women might have those implants, although that estimate does not include women who might have travelled outwith the United Kingdom to receive implants.
I understand that this is an extraordinarily worrying time for women who have had breast implants, which is why we have made arrangements for the NHS inform helpline and website to provide additional support. If anyone is concerned about PIP silicone breast implants, they should seek advice from their general practitioner or the clinic that performed the implant.
I thank the First Minister for his helpful response. He will be aware that many private clinics refuse to accept any responsibility and are intent on charging thousands of pounds for removal of implants. How will the First Minister ensure that private clinics, which should not be let off the hook, meet their responsibility to their patients? In the event that he cannot do so, will he outline what safety net the NHS will provide for those women? Finally, will he agree to meet me and women who are affected to discuss their concerns?
The Deputy First Minister has indicated that she will be glad to meet to pursue the concerns. We expect private providers to offer the same level of service to their patients without cost. In cases in which a private provider no longer exists or will not provide the service, we will not leave any woman in Scotland without support—the national health service will step in. The presumption will be that that will cover only removal of implants, but if the clinical opinion is that replacement is required and that is what the woman wants, that would also be covered by our national health service.
Scottish Ambulance Service (Rest Breaks)
6. To ask the First Minister what progress has been made towards securing an agreement with ambulance staff on emergency interruption of rest breaks. (S4F-00386)
The Scottish Government is doing everything it can to bring the issue to a swift conclusion. Rest periods have been a contentious issue in the ambulance service since the introduction of the agenda for change in 2004. Urgent meetings have taken place this week and all parties are seeking a resolution that safeguards patient safety. The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy will update the Scottish Parliament on progress in a statement on 18 January.
I thank the First Minister for his response. While negotiations are on-going, it would be inappropriate for me to say very much other than to emphasise to any member who has constituents in rural communities, as I do, the importance of the issue to those who find that their ambulances are widely spread out. I am therefore grateful to the First Minister for his response and I hope that those negotiations will be concluded swiftly.
I acknowledge the important work of the Scottish Ambulance Service in saving lives and providing medical assistance day in and day out in Scotland. As First Minister, I look forward—as I am sure everyone in Parliament does—to a solution on rest breaks that addresses patient safety and protects the wellbeing of ambulance staff.
I thank the First Minister for his comments. Will he welcome the unions’ agreement to extend for a short period the interim agreement to allow negotiations to conclude? Does he agree that it is time to reclassify front-line ambulance workers as emergency workers under the European Union directive as applied to police, firefighters and the armed forces in order fully to ensure the safety of the public and the workers?
Talks are on-going on the issue and on other aspects of Dr Simpson’s question, so he will forgive me if I go no further at present. However, he can be certain that the Scottish Government is doing its utmost to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible.
12:31
Meeting suspended.
14:15
On resuming—