First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01241)
I am sure that the whole chamber will want to join me in sending our warmest congratulations to Pope Francis—the first ever Pope from Latin America—on his election. His election will be a great encouragement to our Catholic community, who are such an important and highly valued part of the fabric of Scotland. The Pope’s first message, in which he urged greater bonds of understanding between peoples and nations, is one that will resonate around the world. We wish the church well under the new leadership of Pope Francis. [Applause.]
Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
I join the First Minister in welcoming the new Pope and send him every good wish in the times ahead. We recognise the particular importance that the Pope’s election has for the Catholic community in Scotland.
Last week, a document that the First Minister did not want the people of Scotland to see revealed that what he and his ministers say in private is different from what they say in public. It was revealed that his finance minister and his chief economic adviser think that forecasting oil revenues is so difficult that, privately, John Swinney questions the affordability of pensions.
John Swinney’s private words holed the First Minister’s public position below the waterline so, after a feverish weekend and a hastily arranged press conference, the First Minister declared—from nowhere—an oil boom. Does the First Minister not think that we can see the join?
I am glad that Johann Lamont thinks that the powers of the Scottish Government are such that it can present the detailed “Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin” in the course of a weekend.
Unfortunately, Johann Lamont does not seem to remember that, two weeks ago at First Minister’s question time, I said:
“The Scottish Government will shortly publish the first in a series of analytical bulletins on oil and gas. The new analysis demonstrates the vast potential that remains.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2013; c 17161.]
Much as I welcome the accolade that the Scottish Government is so efficient that we can produce such a serious and detailed analysis over the course of a weekend, I have to say that the statement that I made two weeks ago should have given people a clue—if they had been listening—that the oil and gas bulletin was about to appear.
Why do not we leave it to the independent, impartial commentator, Douglas Fraser of the BBC, to comment on the matter? On 12 March, he said:
“If, as his critics claim, it was conjured out of thin air as a response to last week’s events, then some of the first minister’s team are not bad at magic.”
Our problem is that, too often, we listen but never hear an answer to the serious questions that the First Minister’s own document challenges us with. He says one thing in private and something else in public. Whatever he said on Monday does not address that problem.
The oil boom that was announced on Monday drowned the credibility of the First Minister’s chief economic adviser, Crawford Beveridge, and of his finance minister.
Let us move on to another of the First Minister’s advisers, Professor John Kay. He said:
“Scotland should be ready to adopt an independent currency.”
He also said that a new currency would have to be adopted quickly, or people could move their money out of Scotland before it was launched.
Does the First Minister agree with his adviser, or will he now rule out a separate Scotland having its own currency?
In my answer to the first question—from which we have quickly moved on, I notice—I pointed out that, two weeks ago, I told the chamber that the oil and gas bulletin was about to be published.
From her second question, Johann Lamont does not seem to have read the report of the fiscal commission that was assembled over the course of a year and which has two Nobel laureates on it. That report explained exactly the best policy for Scotland on the currency and a Sterling area. I think that it was published four or five weeks ago, so I must conclude that not only does Johann Lamont not listen to what I say at First Minister’s question time, but she has not bothered to read the fiscal commission’s report.
That is exactly why we commissioned that serious piece of work: it puts forward the Government’s policy in a serious and comprehensive way.
I say to Johann Lamont that her difficulty is in trying to give the impression or to argue that, uniquely among the countries of the world, this nation of Scotland—with its immense natural and human resources—is somehow incapable of running its economy and society rather better than the disaster that is emanating from Westminster.
It says quite a lot about what the First Minister thinks an answer to a question is if he imagines that what he said even began to respond to the question that I asked. We are arguing not about Scotland’s resources but about the First Minister’s risk-rich, assertion-rich and fantasy-rich plans for our country.
I note that the First Minister has not ruled out the question of a separate Scottish currency, which he used to want. Then he wanted the euro. Now the line is that we will keep sterling.
Professor Kay has made the point that any new currency would have to be launched suddenly; otherwise, wealth might flow out of Scotland before it was launched. It would be a gift for spivs and speculators. In a sense, perhaps it is something that the First Minister could not commit to publicly. Has he had any private conversations about a separate Scottish currency with Professor Kay or anyone else?
I have had conversations with a range of people, including the fiscal commission. It came up with what it believes is the best policy for Scotland, which is the policy of the Government and has been for a considerable time.
Johann Lamont says that we have changed our policy over the years. Yes, I can remember someone—what was his name again? He was a shadow secretary of state and Secretary of State for Scotland—he was called Alistair Darling. I remember him telling the House of Commons that not joining the euro would impose extraordinary costs on the economy. I remember Tony Blair saying that it was time to join the euro. I even remember Kenneth Clarke arguing for that. I remember all those things, so I think that Johann Lamont is on shaky ground in suggesting that we should look for policy consistency over 20 years from the Labour Party. It has not been evident.
The policy that the Scottish Government puts forward is that of being part of a sterling area, which we have debated many times. The fiscal commission—with its two Nobel laureates—consolidated and put forward that policy. That seems to be a great deal more examination and presentation than has ever been managed by the Labour Party or its unionist friends in Scotland.
Despite the touch of amateur dramatics about that, the First Minister still did not answer the question. We know that Alex Salmond is known for his insults, but the problem—which is worse—is that he is insulting the intelligence of the people of Scotland.
Let me get this right. In private, the First Minister and his colleagues question whether there will be a state pension; in public, he cannot tell pensioners—[Interruption.]
Order.
Obviously, Scottish National Party members have still not read the document that was leaked to the rest of us.
In private, the First Minister and his colleagues question whether there will be a state pension; in public, he cannot tell pensioners what currency it would be paid in if it existed. He asserts—[Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister asserts that we could keep sterling, but what would he do if the deal that was on offer from the Bank of England was unacceptable? What would he do if the fiscal constraints were too tight? What would he do if strings were imposed by London? [Interruption.] Would he go for a separate Scottish currency? [Interruption.]
Order. [Interruption.] Order—we will hear the member. [Interruption.] Order. Ms Sturgeon.
It is astonishing that asking serious questions creates the degree of derision among SNP back benchers—[Interruption.]
Order—there is too much shouting.
Of course, we know that they are never allowed to ask any of those questions of their front benchers, even if they know in their heart of hearts that their front benchers are incapable of answering them.
Would the First Minister go for a separate Scottish currency or join the euro? His own advisers say that he would need a plan B, and we are entitled to know what that is. He must have one in private; it is time that he made it public.
I differ from Johann Lamont in that she does not have a plan A, never mind a plan B.
On the reason for the hilarity about the strings pulled from London, I say seriously to Johann Lamont that I suspect that she voted for the Iraq war because strings were pulled from the Labour Party in London.
We are in favour of Scotland continuing in a sterling area, and we set out the reasons for that in the fiscal commission report, which, by any estimation, is a huge and serious piece of analysis.
That is the third time that I have answered Johann Lamont’s question. The key point that she has made and the scaremongering attack are about pensions. I point out three things to her. First, Scotland currently spends less on social protection as part of our total national product than the United Kingdom as a whole. In other words, we are better able to afford welfare and pensions than the UK at the moment.
Secondly, does Johann Lamont have no awareness of what is happening to pensions in the United Kingdom? Private sector and public sector pensions are being seriously jeopardised and undermined by the current Administration.
The third point is the key one. What other country in the world would have a unionist coalition suggesting that the immense wealth to flow from Scotland’s natural resources is somehow a handicap and a problem, instead of what every other country in the world sees it as: an opportunity to combine our natural and human resources to be used in an economically successful and prosperous Scotland?
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. I associate myself and the Scottish Conservative Party with the First Minister’s welcome to Pope Francis.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01240)
No plans in the near future.
Last week, we saw in the Swinneyleaks document that the finance secretary accepts the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projection that North Sea oil revenue would halve in five years. The First Minister’s response—although he denies that he moved it up or rushed it out in any way—was a barely six-page long fantasy report that asserted a new oil boom in Scotland. The smoke and mirrors of that report were compounded by taking an average of four cherry-picked examples and conveniently leaving the OBR’s respected projection to one side.
The First Minister mentioned his own fiscal commission with its two Nobel laureates. That commission warns that
“The Scottish Government should plan budgets on a cautious estimate for oil revenues”.
Can the First Minister tell us why, against his own experts’ advice and his finance secretary’s acknowledgement, he has ignored the
“unchallenged, independent, more cautious estimate”?
We have not. I am sorry that Ruth Davidson has also not accepted what Johann Lamont refused to accept, which is that the “Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin” had been in preparation for a considerable time, as the evidence indicates.
Ruth Davidson claims that we put forward an ambitious estimate for oil prices, but that is simply not the case. We have assumed a declining real-term oil price over the term of the forecast: $113 in nominal terms, declining in real terms. Incidentally, if we take an average of the figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the United States economic agency, the Economist Intelligence Unit, the Ernst and Young ITEM Club, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and the OBR, we come to a figure that is exactly that in 2017 and 2018.
I have a range of quotes from people who make reasonable estimations. Professor John McLaren, for example, has said:
“The Scottish Government’s Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin is a very welcome addition to the statistical landscape, especially with the referendum approaching.”
Any reasonable estimation of the analysis in the “Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin” has led to it receiving a strong welcome—from those who do not have the vested interest that the Conservative Party has.
I repeat the point that I tried to make to Ruth Davidson last week about the industry estimates. The OBR estimates assume that oil production will decline to 1.5 million barrels a day and keep going down. The industry—the people who are investing £11 billion this year and £13 billion in the coming financial year—says that, as a result of those billions being spent, production will go to 2 million barrels a day. Is it not reasonable to follow the people who are investing the money, rather than the OBR? Incidentally, the OBR did not publish six pages of oil forecast, because it did not publish any pages at all.
The First Minister’s figure of £48 billion from 2017-18 takes account of only the four projections that the Scottish Government used and leaves out the OBR projection. Let us look at the projections. We asked the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Government whether we could see the sums behind the document, and this is what the Scottish Government had to say:
“The scale and complexity of the models we use, combined with the fact that some of them rely on firm-level data and subscriptions to commercial data sources means that we are not in a position to make them publicly available.”
In other words, the Government is saying, “We made up these projections and we’re not telling you how. It’s too big and too complicated to let the Parliament or the people of Scotland know. Just take us on trust.” After the European legal advice fiasco, we know exactly how far to trust the Scottish Government. By ignoring the OBR and fiddling the figures, is it not true that the First Minister is asking Scotland to take a massive punt with a dodgy bookie who is fixing the race?
I note that we had no further conversation about relying on the industry estimates on what will happen if it invests £100 billion, as it intends to do. Why does the member think that the industry is investing that money? Is it doing that to reduce oil and gas production? The reason for investing that money is to increase oil and gas production. Therefore, let us just assume and accept that the industry’s figure of 2 million barrels a day is a better and more reliable guide to production than the OBR estimate of falling production. Let us just say that that is reasonably solid information.
Ruth Davidson again claims that, in assuming an average price of $113, we excluded the OBR’s figure. The DECC, which incidentally is another department of the UK Government, estimates an average of $133 by 2017-18—that is the mid-term estimate. The United States economic agency estimates $112; the Economist Intelligence Unit, which is not known for forecasting high oil prices, estimates $115; and the NIESR estimates $114. The OBR estimate is $92. The average of those estimates is $113. We did not exclude the OBR estimate in calculating an average.
No one seriously believes that assuming a declining real oil price over the next five years is somehow an ambitious estimate rather than a cautious one. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures that were published just last week talk about oil prices over $150. None of that was included in the analysis, because we followed the right line of assuming a reasonable production forecast and a cautious oil price forecast.
We must accept that, contrary to the extraordinary remarks of Mr Rennie that I heard on television suggesting that the OBR has a good record on forecasting oil revenues, the OBR has an extraordinarily bad record on forecasting. It has never got a single forecast right in forecasting oil revenues. Indeed, if we are to believe sources in the Conservative Party, the OBR does not get anything else right in forecasting.
Let us accept that the bulletin is a substantial contribution to the debate that has been widely welcomed by those who are interested in the debate and that suggests to the Scottish people that the natural resources of Scotland will be flowing from the North Sea for generations to come. Having lost out on the last 40 years, let us make sure that Scotland gets its share from the next 40 years.
The First Minister will be aware that it emerged this week that some 50 patients at Gartnavel general hospital had their surgery postponed because surgical instruments from the central decontamination unit, which is based at Cowlairs in my constituency, were not safe for use.
We are advised by press reports that consultants have been complaining for years about the standard of the service that they receive from the decontamination unit. Although press reports identified a particular problem at Gartnavel, the decontamination unit serves all 120 of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s operating theatres. Can the First Minister advise members when the Scottish Government was first made aware of the problem, what action it has taken to resolve it and what checks have been undertaken across the health board area to ensure that the problem is not more widespread?
I thank Patricia Ferguson for her question and I will ask the health secretary to write to her about the exact detail. I can tell her that the information that was supplied by the health board shows that the particular issue was the breaking of the sealed packaging on the equipment that was delivered. Quite rightly and properly, the doctors concerned did not proceed with operations under those conditions—that is, incidentally, part of the patient safety guarantee in the health service in Scotland, which has been praised domestically and internationally; it is part of the charter of patient safety that people do not proceed unless they are sure of the integrity of the equipment.
Arrangements are being made to ensure that all the patients concerned are treated within the waiting time guarantee. Surely it is right, when there is no assurance that medical equipment has been properly sterilised, that operations do not take place. The patients do not suffer in terms of their entitlement to the patient guarantee. However, because of the seriousness with which we take the issue, I will certainly ensure that the health secretary gives the member a comprehensive reply, for her constituents.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. I join the First Minister in congratulating the new pope. In this turbulent world, Pope Francis has a heavy burden. I think that all members wish him well in his endeavours.
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01244)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The First Minister will have heard that the Prime Minister is proposing to act on press regulation next week. The Prime Minister has ended the cross-party talks and will table amendments on Monday. He said this morning:
“There’s no point in producing a system that the press won’t take part in.”
Does the First Minister agree with the Prime Minister? Will he say how the Scottish Government intends to respond to the developments?
I saw the developments just before I came into the chamber. I was disappointed, because the indications that we had yesterday were that the all-party talks had a positive air to them.
As Willie Rennie knows, we are engaged in all-party talks and discussions ourselves. We have a further meeting this afternoon with the press, and I think that we will be able to take account of recent developments and try to find a joint way forward.
It would be hugely to be welcomed if we could find a joint way forward in the Parliament and—if not absolute agreement on everything—a consensus on some of the main planks of what needs to be done. I will certainly pursue things in that spirit and I know that Willie Rennie will, as well.
The First Minister is right; we will work constructively. I, too, am disappointed by the Prime Minister’s actions this morning.
The First Minister’s expert group is currently considering how Scotland should implement Leveson. Is there any prospect of the First Minister being able to bring forward the group’s report, so that it can influence the decisions that might be made in Westminster next week?
The report is due to be published by the end of this month. In fairness to everyone else who will be at the talks, I should perhaps update Willie Rennie on that at the meeting this afternoon. I think that he will find that the work of the expert group is well advanced.
Disability Benefits Tribunals (Medical Information)
4. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government seeks to ensure that all relevant medical information is available to support patients who appeal to the disability benefits tribunal system. (S4F-01248)
The Scottish Government will do everything that we can do to facilitate a better outcome for people who are affected by that aspect of the United Kingdom Government’s flawed welfare reforms. The simple fact is that the UK Government’s work capability assessment is flawed and has not been improved, despite no fewer than three reviews, thus far, of its operation. That is evidenced by the fact that no less than 37 per cent—I repeat, 37 per cent—of disability benefit rejections are overturned on appeal.
There are concerns over how and when the Department for Work and Pensions and Atos both request and use information that is provided by general practitioners in relation to work capability assessments and the resultant need for tribunals for constituents who are wrongly assessed by Atos in the first place. Significant concerns also exist that additional pressures are being placed on GPs in relation to sharing information due to the shameful and unjustifiable bedroom tax.
Will the First Minister support my call for the DWP and Atos to review urgently this flawed process to ensure that medical information is requested from GPs on a consistent basis and, more important, that it is used appropriately to assist my constituents in getting the support that they need from a deeply flawed United Kingdom benefits system?
Yes, I agree. I should point out that an important piece of information that was sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of the Scottish Government’s barrage of information to the UK Government to persuade it to change its mind on the bedroom tax, which I agree is iniquitous, was a submission from the finance secretary on work that has been carried out by Scottish Government economists showing that, as well as being socially iniquitous and causing enormous disruption to families, the bedroom tax will, in simple economic terms, reduce economic output over the medium term. Even arguing for the bedroom tax as the UK Government has done in terms of simple financial calculation is wrong according to that analysis. We are hoping for further—and this time substantial—concessions from the UK Government, as it should realise and recognise the amount of social damage the bedroom tax is going to inflict.
Prisons (Contraband)
5. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to tackle contraband in prisons. (S4F-01257)
The Government and the Scottish Prison Service are committed to the prevention and detection of contraband coming into our prisons. We have invested in body scanners for each prison. We have doubled the number of prison detection dogs in the past 12 months. We have rolled out the prison watch scheme, which in particular helps to combat drugs being thrown over prison walls. I am pleased that, as a result, we have been able to intercept more drugs that otherwise would have been destined for our prisons. Finds have increased by 14 per cent since 2011-12. Together with the £120 million a year investment in building modern prisons, that means that levels of security are higher than ever, but this remains a serious problem.
The First Minister will have read in the Daily Record and elsewhere how smuggled phones are used to boast about smuggled drugs and to intimidate victims and witnesses on social networking sites. Does he agree with the prison officer who wrote to me the other day calling for phone-blocking technology to be used in Scottish prisons? Given that Westminster is now passing a bill to allow that, will the First Minister undertake today to use those new powers to protect victims, witnesses and prison staff from the consequences of prisoners illegally using mobile phones?
I will look carefully at what Lewis Macdonald has to say, but he should remember that we changed the law in 2010 to allow for the prosecution of those who introduce mobile phones into prison or prisoners who have in their possession a mobile phone. That has resulted in 47 convictions of prisoners in 2011 alone. In 2012, there were 110 convictions for the illegal possession of mobile phones in prisons. I will make those figures available to Lewis Macdonald, because they indicate the stepping up of the attempt to drive drugs from the prison estate. I can also make available statistics that indicate that, although the position is still serious, there is no doubt, from the examination of prisoners when they leave prison, that the methods and measures that have been used have resulted in a decline in what is a serious problem. From those prosecution statistics, Lewis Macdonald can see that the 2010 changes in legislation are being rigorously enforced.
The one aspect of the press coverage that I did not agree with was that some of it looked at the increase in drugs finds as if they were a bad thing and part of the problem. The increase in drugs finds is of course directly related to the measures that I outlined. It is because of the increased security measures that we are finding more of these harmful substances in the prison estate.
Business Growth
6. To ask the First Minister what actions the Scottish Government will take to assist growth in the business sector. (S4F-01243)
The Scottish Government is supporting and will continue to support business growth and innovation to the full extent of our current powers. Support for schools, colleges, universities and skills provides business with a skilled workforce and world-class research. A total of £564 million of relief has been awarded to Scottish businesses since the introduction of the small business bonus scheme, which I believe has been a lifeline for many of our small businesses across Scotland.
Has the First Minister noted the contrast between the growing optimism that is expressed through this week’s purchasing managers index, and international sentiment, which led to the downgrading of the United Kingdom’s credit rating? Can he indicate what that and the recent “Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland” report might have to tell us about Scotland’s prospects now and after independence?
We can confidently assume that the initials “AAA” will not be used by the bitter together campaign for a substantial time to come.
The purchasing managers index is a helpful and welcome sign of economic recovery in Scotland. However, there are still serious problems across the economy, which is why it is important that next week focuses the mind and attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on following the consistent advice from this Government, the Welsh Administration and the Northern Irish Administration to bring about the investment, particularly the capital investment, that this economy badly needs to bring us out of the present economic conditions.
Now that one bit of the Tory-Liberal Administration is—well, I was going to be nasty, but I will not. “Better some sinners repenteth,” is what we have to say to the calls for increased capital investment by members of the coalition. Let us hope that they can carry their Tory members with them in the budget next week and that we can look for serious investment to get us out of economic recession.
That ends First Minister’s question time. I will now allow a short suspension to allow people to leave the public gallery and others to enter before we move to the members’ business debate.
12:31
Meeting suspended.
12:43
On resuming—