First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01456)
Later today, I will meet Marilyn Barnes, who is the managing director of the marketing firm Aquira, which I am delighted to announce is creating up to 200 jobs at a new facility in the city of Glasgow. After yesterday’s positive employment statistics and last week’s announcement on sparkling performance on inward investment, and despite a number of challenges in a number of areas and companies, and austerity from Westminster, this has been a good news week for the Scottish economy.
Will the First Minister tell us what—apart from the pound, the Bank of England, the national health service, the armed forces, the monarchy and the welfare state—the United Kingdom has ever done for us?
Is not that a question more for those who advocate continuing rule from London over the Scottish people? I think that having rule from London and an austerity budget that was described by former Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am just trying to grasp his name—Alistair Darling as “madness” in terms of economic policy direction, rather makes the case for economic fiscal decisions over tax and spending being made in Scotland.
I also think that many people in Scotland would rather like to stay in one of the 190 countries—out of 200 in the world—that are free of nuclear weapons, as opposed to having the largest concentration of weapons of mass destruction in Europe.
It is very odd, in that case, that the First Minister wants to reassure everybody that everything will stay the same and that nothing will change.
The mystery is this: if the UK has so much that we want to share, why would we leave it and then ask it to share the things that we have left behind? If the rest of the UK is so monstrous, I wonder why it would want to share those things with us anyway.
The truth is that the First Minister’s current plan would only weaken Scotland. Now his plan is to enshrine a foreign Government’s economic and welfare policies in Scottish policy without Scots having any say whatsoever.
My question to the First Minister is this: he used to say that the pound and the UK welfare state were bad for Scotland, so what has changed?
Can I correct Johann Lamont? One of the reasons why we want independence is so that we can have social justice for the Scottish people. I note that only a few weeks ago Johann Lamont said that if she could be persuaded of that point, she would support independence, so let me have a go at persuading her.
One thing that independence will guarantee for the people is that we will not have different rates of benefits from the rest of the United Kingdom. I quote from the Daily Record—a very reliable source indeed—of 4 June:
“Scots could get welfare benefits at lower rates than people in wealthy parts of England under plans being worked on by Labour.
Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls yesterday raised the idea of a regional cap on welfare, opening the door to variations in a range of social security benefits.”
Not only will independence free us from the bedroom tax that is being imposed by the Tory party, it will free us from Ed Balls’s plans to pay people in Scotland less benefits than people in wealthy parts of England.
First, that is not what Ed Balls said, as the First Minister knows perfectly well. [Interruption.] We have all learned that just because the First Minister says it does not mean that it is true—[Interruption.]
Order. Order!
The idea that it is possible for this Government to argue that it will have a greater commitment to social justice under independence, when it has said that it will be tied to UK policies on welfare until 2020, is completely ridiculous. Independent experts have said that it would be impossible to get rid of the bedroom tax on day 1 of independence if we continued with the welfare position as advocated by the UK. It is nonsense on stilts and everyone but this lot—Scottish National Party members—knows it.
Many of us—maybe too many of us—remember a young nationalist rogue in Westminster, who was, when Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson announced a cut in corporation tax, expelled from the chamber for calling the budget “an obscenity”. Now, the all-too-rich irony is that the one thing that the First Minister wants control of—the one thing to which he holds firm and on which he will not shift—is corporation tax. In an independent Scotland, corporation tax would be 3p lower than whatever level the Tories set it at. The benefits? The First Minister reckons that there would be massive 0.07 per cent growth per year—and that is with a 3 per cent margin of error.
I ask again: what happened to that young man who believed in independence, and who now advocates “independence”?
Johann Lamont forgot to mention the thousands of jobs that will be created. I know that the Labour Party these days does not care about jobs, and I knew that Johann Lamont would not ask about the matter today, given yesterday’s splendid jobs figures, but I think that jobs are still important to some people in this country, which is why having a competitive rate of corporation tax—and then collecting it—seems to be a good idea.
I have been the first to criticise George Osborne for his lack of direction in collecting corporation tax in this country. However, it has been pointed out to me that non-payment of corporation tax and other taxes peaked under Gordon Brown’s tenure at the Treasury. Of course, we know that the Labour Party is at the moment actively advising people—its own donors—on tax avoidance, so Labour is in a poor position to lecture people on tax avoidance.
Let us get to the guts of the welfare report. What Johann Lamont misunderstands is that the administration of a system does not mean identical policy throughout the system. For example, we currently have joint administration of the student loans system, but there are two radically different policies in Scotland and England. In Scotland, we have no tuition fees—thanks to the SNP—but people in England have tuition fees, thanks to the Tories and the Liberals, and they would have more tuition fees in the unlikely event of the Labour Party ever getting back into power.
Johann Lamont said that I misrepresented Labour policy. I was quoting from the Daily Record. If Johann Lamont has got to the stage at which she thinks that the Daily Record is secretly trying to undermine Ed Balls and the Labour Party by misinterpreting statements on welfare, that indicates a difficulty in her party that goes beyond even my expectations.
The fact is that Ed Balls has accepted the Tory spending plans and he has accepted the Tory cap on welfare. Labour refuses to say that it will repeal the bedroom tax, and here we have it in the Daily Record: Labour wants to pay poor people in Scotland less than poor people elsewhere in these islands. What sort of United Kingdom is that?
That is simply not true. [Interruption.] Only the First Minister wants a welfare system that is better and that will be funded by cutting corporation tax by 3p. That is completely ludicrous. If it were not for the fact that this is about pensions, people’s wages and the future of our children, we could just laugh at that ludicrous response from the First Minister. Well prepared as it was, it did not respond to the challenge that lies at the very heart of his proposals for an independent Scotland, which would rely on the good will of a state that we will have said oppresses us and from which we will have said that we have to free ourselves.
The question that we face, on which I suspect the First Minister’s own back benchers and party members will also reflect, is this: has the First Minister lost his mojo on independence, or does he—this might be more accurate—simply think that the people of Scotland are mugs? His plans for the currency, pensions, benefits, jobs and mortgages now all hinge on the good will of a country that we would just have made a foreign country by voting to leave it.
Rubbish!
I do not know why Mr Swinney is saying that that is rubbish. His First Minister and Deputy First Minister have reassured us that that is what would happen after independence. Perhaps the SNP back benchers might want to set up a breakaway group—“SNP for independence”—[Interruption.]
Can we have a little bit of calm to allow Ms Lamont to complete her question?
As we know, the noisier it is, the truer the accusation.
The truth is—the First Minister acknowledges this; indeed he celebrates it—that the UK would control our currency, our economy and now our pensions. Perhaps he has another plan that he is not telling us about. It is all too evident that the current plan is neither independence—
Come on! Ask a question.
Order, Mr Swinney!
Indeed.
The First Minister must have another plan that he is not telling us about, because the current plan is neither for independence, nor is it credible.
I was waiting for the big punchline, but it never came. It is interesting that we had got to the fourth question before Johann Lamont evinced a spontaneous reception from the Scottish Conservative Party. Alistair Darling managed a standing ovation.
I point out to Johann Lamont her fundamental misunderstanding. She said that it would take the “good will” of the Government in Westminster for it to accept shared administration of the welfare system. The point is that Scotland administers a large part of the welfare system of England and Wales. I do not think that that is “good will”; it is common sense for the Government at Westminster and therefore is consistent with the proposals put forward by the welfare expert group.
Let us turn to a specific policy, which I think has more public currency than any other when it comes to the differences between governing in this place and governing from Westminster: the bedroom tax. We know not just from the Daily Record, from which Johann Lamont wants to disassociate herself, but from Helen Goodman, the Labour shadow cabinet spokesperson on the bedroom tax, who made it quite clear on “Daily Politics” on 11 March, that Labour has no plans to abolish or to reverse the bedroom tax. That point was exemplified by Ed Balls when he said only this week that he would accept the Tories’ entire spending plans. In contrast, this Government will abolish the bedroom tax if we are elected as the first Government of an independent Scotland. Not only will we abolish it, we will do so in the first year of that independent Scotland.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01453)
There are no plans in the near future.
This morning, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Alex Neil, promised that people who had been forced to pay thousands of pounds in care costs for relatives with complex care needs that should have been covered by the national health service would be “appropriately reimbursed.” In three years, we have seen the number of people across Scotland having those care costs supported fall by 27 per cent. Why have relatives of some of the most vulnerable and desperately ill people in this country been denied the support to which they were entitled?
The guidelines on continuing care in Scotland have been consistent for some time. The updated guidance, which was issued in 2008, took account of the good-practice recommendations that were put forward by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. I will repeat what the health secretary said, which is that in any case in which those guidelines have not been followed, the situation will be rectified.
Luckily, because of the passage of the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011, the patient advice and support service, which is operated by Citizens Advice Scotland, the Care Information Scotland line—a confidential phone line funded by the Scottish Government—and access to health boards means that there are many routes for patients to challenge a position that they think is unjust.
Of course, if any individual has not had their rights according to the regulations in Scotland, that case will be looked at and rectified. However, I would much rather live in a country in which 77,000 people, at present, have access to free personal and nursing care and are cared for as part of the fabric of the health service than in a country that does not have that advantage for its elderly people.
I am sure that the First Minister is not conflating continuing healthcare entitlement with free personal care on purpose, knowing as he does that they are separate. We are not talking about free personal care. We are talking about the continuing healthcare entitlement.
I am pleased that the First Minister has acknowledged that the health minister held his hands up to the problem today. That is a start, and I thank Alex Neil for that. However, at one point in his BBC interview, he said that he thought that only “a small number” of people were affected. At another, he said that he thought that we were talking about “a few thousand” people.
The truth is surely that nobody knows how many people have been affected. The health minister and the First Minister ask for those affected to come to them. The Government needs to be a bit more proactive than that. The First Minister has a responsibility to find out how many people in Scotland caring for critically ill relatives have been handing over thousands of pounds when they should not have been. We need a full audit of every person in every health board who may be affected, currently or historically, to ensure that proper reparations are paid. Will the First Minister order such an audit?
This is a serious subject for people so I will take Ruth Davidson through what happens at present. As I mentioned in my first answer, the guidance was updated in 2008 and took account of the recommendations from the ombudsman on good practice. What happens to people is that the consultant or general practitioner, in consultation with the multidisciplinary team, will decide whether an individual is eligible for NHS continuing healthcare. That guidance states that it is down to
“the complexity, nature or intensity of the patient’s health needs”.
People are assessed within the system at present.
Secondly—and thank goodness for this—far from sitting back and not doing anything about the rights of patients, we have passed the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011 and instituted two additional means for people to ensure that the health service is treating them properly and according to the guidance: the patient advice and support service from Citizens Advice Scotland and the confidential line that is provided by Care Information Scotland and funded by the Scottish Government. Those are avenues by which people can get their rights and entitlement under the national health service.
Ruth Davidson sweeps away the importance of the 77,000 people who get free personal nursing care, but that is exactly on this subject. What happens to people who are entitled to continuing care within the health service—almost three quarters of people in that position are in hospital and therefore have no accommodation charges in that sense—is that they get help with accommodation charges in nursing homes in a way that does not happen under free personal and nursing care. That is an aspect of the system, and the system is a continuous one.
Therefore, what needs to be done—and certainly will be done—is that we will ensure that the regulations are properly followed and that the opportunities exist for elderly patients and their relatives to come forward on these matters. If anything has been done that is contrary to the regulations, it will be rectified.
Not to understand that having a system of free personal and nursing care in society is fundamentally superior to not having such a system is not to understand the importance of defending that system for the Scottish people.
Neil Findlay has a constituency question.
Let me tell the First Minister that it has not been a “good” or “sparkling” week for employment in my area. What help can be given to the people in my region, now that Robert Wiseman Dairies has entered consultation over 116 job losses at its Whitburn depot? The area is already reeling from the loss of 1,700 jobs at Hall’s of Broxburn.
The sparkling performance relates to inward investment. The Labour Party should accept that the employment figures, particularly for young people in Scotland, are very good news indeed.
The member raises a very important constituency issue. Scottish Enterprise officials have already been in touch with the company and the national partnership action for continuing employment manager spoke with the company’s human resources representatives yesterday, offering support for any employees who might be affected by redundancy. The company says that no decisions have yet been made. It also points to the number of posts that could be created at other distribution centres.
The member should understand that we take such matters very seriously. There will be both PACE and ministerial intervention—as there has been substantial intervention in West Lothian—to try to secure the employment and employment prospects of his constituents. We should do that jointly as a Parliament, just as we should jointly welcome the substantial indications that the Scottish employment situation is improving and that youth employment, in particular, has shown remarkable progress over the past 18 months.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01458)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
When I asked before about divisions within the police, the First Minister laughed and said that it was creative tension. Was he laughing when the chief executive of the Scottish Police Authority resigned in February? The First Minister told me that matters had been resolved, but we now discover that chaos continued at the heart of our newly centralised police force. Why did he not tell the Parliament about the resignation of that senior public leader? That stinks of a cover-up. Why was the Parliament not informed of the resignation of the authority’s chief executive? Just what did the First Minister have to hide?
Vic Emery, the chair of the Scottish Police Authority, said today:
“There is plenty of confidence and continuity at the top of the Scottish Police Authority. Strategic direction and decision-making at the Scottish Police Authority continues to be provided by a board of 13 members. We have all been appointed for a four-year term. Continuity is strong at board level and the organisation is developing and maturing its relationships with both Police Scotland and other stakeholders.”
He also pointed out that he has been before the Parliament on a number of occasions. I do not think that Willie Rennie should conflate interim appointments with permanent ones at the Scottish Police Authority. He should take the word of the chairman of the authority, who says that matters are in hand and that the organisation looks confidently to the future.
Given the spectacular success of the Scottish police service in delivering the lowest rate of recorded crime for a generation and the excellence of its performance across Scotland, a party that is forecasting doom and disaster when all the figures on justice and the effectiveness of the police in Scotland say otherwise is going to be on a hiding to nothing as those points and arguments are replayed to it in the months to come.
The First Minister cannot hide behind the Police Authority’s operational independence. As Andrea Quinn’s letter points out, the Scottish Government has been involved every step of the way on the structure of the new Police Authority. The chief executive was going, but the matter was kept quiet. As a result, we will be without a permanent chief, and we have had three chief executives in just one year. If that is continuity, I do not know what not having continuity is. Why was the recruitment process not started earlier? The First Minister told me that the chaos was sorted in January. Then, in February, Andrea Quinn resigned. We led a police debate in March, but Parliament was not told about that. Did the Government ask the chairman to keep the resignation quiet to avoid embarrassment? Did the Government tell Vic Emery to keep that quiet?
I am not hiding behind operational independence but, certainly, I have no knowledge of anyone in the Government suggesting any such thing to Vic Emery. Vic Emery says not, too. In his statement today, he said:
“changes in personnel are a feature of most mergers and reform programmes”.
The issue of operational independence is not something to hide behind; it is something of fundamental importance. The operational independence of the police service is of huge importance in a democratic society. By definition, it is even more important that the Scottish Police Authority should have operational independence.
In his statement today, Vic Emery said:
“By the end of this month I will have appeared before the Justice Committee on four occasions.”
There will be ample opportunity for Willie Rennie to raise in the Justice Committee any conspiracy theory that comes into his head, assuming he remembers to turn up this time.
Illegal Surveillance
4. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has been in contact with the United Kingdom Government regarding illegal surveillance activities in Scotland. (S4F-01457)
We are clear that people have the right to communicate without the fear of unlawful surveillance by the state. Following the extensive media coverage of the access by the Government Communications Headquarters to US intelligence, the Scottish ministers have sought assurances from the UK Government. On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to the Foreign Secretary to acknowledge a statement that Mr Hague made on Monday and to ask for further information for the benefit of this Parliament.
I thank the First Minister for his answer. Will Mr Hague’s reply be published?
What is the current oversight system for surveillance in Scotland? Has there been any consideration of changes to the system?
On the issue of the future work, I refer the member to the evidence that the Deputy First Minister gave to the relevant committee.
I can share with Christine Grahame the points that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice made to the Foreign Secretary. He said:
“You will appreciate that as Cabinet Secretary for Justice I wish to be satisfied that the rights of the people of Scotland have been upheld. In addition I expect that there will be Scottish Parliamentary interest in this issue. I would therefore be grateful for further information from you about the approach that you are taking to the investigation of this matter, and the progress that is being made to provide the necessary assurance in relation to compliance with the law.”
The straight answer to Christine Grahame’s question is that the reply will be published. Although it is for the relevant parliamentary committee to decide, it could also lead questions on that evidence and further pursue the matter.
Cervical Cancer (Detection)
5. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to improve detection of cervical cancer. (S4F-01460)
The earlier that a cancer is detected, the easier it is to treat it. We know that screening is the best way to stop cervical cancer at its earliest stage.
Every woman in Scotland between 20 and 60 is invited to be screened for cervical cancer every three years. Information leaflets that are issued with each invitation contain information on the symptoms and give advice on seeking medical advice if the symptoms are present.
This week is cervical cancer awareness week. The message from this Government—and, I am sure, from the whole chamber—is that all eligible women in Scotland should find out more about cervical screening so that they can be as informed as possible about the benefits of such screening.
I associate myself with the First Minister’s response: early detection is, of course, extremely important. Does the First Minister agree that securing swift follow-up treatment is also key? Unlike in England, the Scottish Government has cancer waiting targets only for initial treatment. There is evidence that patients are waiting longer for follow-up treatment, but that is not recorded. Does the First Minister believe that that hidden cancer waiting list is acceptable?
I was hoping that on this issue—given its importance and the fact that this is cervical cancer week—the chamber could speak with one voice and Jackie Baillie could avoid seeing every issue as a potential issue for political division. The service that we are discussing should unite this chamber.
As Jackie Baillie should know, we are considering the inclusion of additional tumour groups in the detect cancer early programme. There are excellent results in terms of the cancer treatment waiting times, as Jackie Baillie also knows. For goodness’ sake, just for once let us unite around the importance of this condition and our support for the efforts of those who are providing the service.
Independence (Benefits)
6. To ask the First Minister how much it would cost annually for an independent Scotland to raise benefit payments to a level that the Scottish Government considers appropriate. (S4F-01469)
As Alex Johnstone should know, we have made two specific commitments for changes that we think are necessary in the context of an independent Scotland when this Parliament gains control over social security. However, I think that we should reflect on the changes that we have already had to make as a result of the imposition of some of the welfare changes from Westminster.
The attempt to cut council tax benefit by 10 per cent, which would have affected 560,000 people across Scotland—including Alex Johnstone’s constituents and my constituents—was luckily avoided by the joint action of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government in making up that amount, which cost £40 million. We have now put £33 million into the social welfare fund to boost the emergency loan fund as a result of the impact of the welfare changes being imposed from Westminster. Of course, an additional £8 million is also going to the advice agencies so that people suffering from the policies being imposed by Alex Johnstone’s colleagues at Westminster can get the help and advice that they need.
Those are points in mitigation, but the two policies that we have already announced for an independent Scotland will also offer fairness and justice to the people of Scotland.
I note the First Minister’s careful answer, but it still does not account for the fact that members of his front-bench team and, particularly, his back benchers are making promises to many people in Scotland about what would apparently happen to benefits and welfare should Scotland become independent.
It is essential that the First Minister take the opportunity to lay out which of those promises he intends to keep, which he believes are merely on-the-hoof commitments and what the cost will be. If the cost is substantial, the additional transfer of wealth required within the Scottish economy is something that everyone should be aware of before they vote on independence. Will the First Minister give the commitment to make those figures public?
Oh yes, I give the commitment to welfare, equity and justice—it will be one of the key arguments in this independence campaign. The cost of the commitments that we have made in terms of abolishing the bedroom tax will be £60 million a year, while moving away from the earnings disregard and giving parity and justice to women in Scotland will cost in the region of £60 million to £80 million a year. We have made those commitments already.
I say to Alex Johnstone that we should look at his argument: the imposition of deep unfairness in the Westminster Government’s attitude to these things; the plunging of tens of thousands more people in Scotland into relative poverty; and the reversal, which I believe the changes will bring about, of the progress that has been made on child poverty in Scotland. Of all the flimsy bases on which the union and the alliance with the Labour Party will stand, that is the flimsiest of them all. People who vote for independence will vote for social justice and progress in Scotland.
Thank you. That concludes First Minister’s question time.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Last week, I asked a question about the inappropriate payment of senior staff at the state hospital. Last week, the First Minister told me that, under the terms and conditions of the Scottish pay reference and implementation group in June 2005 and the terms and conditions for state hospital senior managers in October 2006, I was wrong and everything was fine. He believed that it was acceptable for senior managers to pay themselves as much as £7,000 each in back pay while the pay of front-line staff was frozen.
Can we get to the point of order, please?
Indeed. I am just coming to it.
Last week, I was clear that there is nothing in either document that would allow such payments and that, in any event, they would need to be signed off by the cabinet secretary, not by the chair or the chief executive of the health board—something that has patently not happened.
That, Presiding Officer, was the position last week. This week, of course, the position has changed. Now, the chief executive has been moved and there is an internal inquiry not just about bullying but about shortcomings, procedures and governance processes. I published a letter from Gordon Craig today that is clear about the inappropriate nature of the payments.
Can we get to the point?
So, Presiding Officer, I would be grateful to know whether it was in order for the First Minister last week to—perhaps unknowingly—mislead Parliament, or was he misled by his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing? Will you invite the First Minister to amend the Official Report to correct his evident error?
As Presiding Officers have said in the past, we are not responsible for the veracity of what is said in the chamber. The content of the First Minister’s responses to questions is a matter for the ministerial code, and that is therefore not a point of order, as I am sure Ms Baillie is well aware.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise for bringing up such a minor matter, but is “mojo” an example of parliamentary language?
As you said, Ms MacDonald, that is a minor matter and not a point of order.
Before we move to the next item of business, and for the information of members not intending to participate in members’ business, I remind members that the annual general meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Scotland branch is due to get under way at 12.45 in committee room 2. I encourage all members to attend.