First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. In a week in which I know that we are, across the chamber, mourning the loss of our friend and fine parliamentarian, Helen Eadie, I ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01670)
I thank Johann Lamont for the opportunity to express my personal condolences—which I know are shared by every single person in the chamber—on the passing of Helen Eadie. She was Johann Lamont’s party colleague, but she was the parliamentary colleague of us all. I understand that the Parliament will be given a chance next week to express its appreciation for Helen’s contribution.
In terms of Government business, we will be carrying forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for those kind words. I know that across the chamber there has been great comfort from the kind words that people have expressed at the loss, particularly for Helen’s very precious family.
On 20 March, a spokesperson for the First Minister said:
“The cast-iron position is that an independent Scotland will continue to use the pound”.
With less than a fortnight to go before the publication of the white paper, is that still the Scottish Government’s position?
Yes.
That is interesting, because I thought that we had experienced a historic day in Scottish politics. That is right—it would appear that someone in the Scottish Government has told the truth. Colin McKay, Alex Salmond’s chief strategist, told a conference this week:
“We cannot assert as an a priori fact we can achieve a currency union with the UK”.
The First Minister’s chief strategist is clear: no cast-iron guarantee can be given. Even in Alex Salmond’s world it cannot possibly be true that one can both have and not have a cast-iron guarantee. Given that rare moment of candour, what is the First Minister’s plan B if he is unable to successfully negotiate a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom?
The point that was made is quite different from the one that Johann Lamont is pursuing. The report in today’s paper is wrong: the white paper will be definitive on the Scottish National Party Government’s policy positions.
The point that was made was entirely different and is illustrated in the newspaper report by the question of the bedroom tax, on which it was said that it is not inevitable in an independent Scotland that the bedroom tax would be repealed. It would be inevitable if there was an SNP Government in an independent Scotland.
The point being made is about the essence of independence; it is about choice. It might be inevitable if there was a Labour Government in an independent Scotland, assuming that they turned up to vote. The essence of the argument for independence is that it gives people in Scotland the choice about what they do. I assure Johann Lamont that, when the white paper is published, it will be definitive about the policy choices of the Scottish National Party on the currency and other matters. In that respect, the argument that was made was about something else entirely. If Johann Lamont will contain herself and wait, she will see that the white paper will give her the information that she desires.
That was not so much cast iron as brass neck. The fact of the matter is that if the First Minister knows what his position is he has an obligation to share it not with me, but with the people of this country who are concerned about their pensions and mortgages and whether they will have the pound.
We know that the First Minister is a master negotiator. We saw that during the historic Edinburgh agreement when he went into a room with David Cameron and gave him everything that he wanted—[Interruption.]
Order.
Alex Salmond will forgive me if I do not share his optimism about negotiating a currency union in the space of 18 months and getting a deal that works for the people of Scotland as well as the arrangement that we now have. Colin McKay, the First Minister’s chief strategist, is also concerned about that timeline. He says that it is “impossible” unless the UK Government wants to negotiate a smooth transfer of powers.
Given that Alex Salmond seems to believe that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are so unreasonable that he has felt for all his political life the need to break away from them, how confident is he that he can strike a deal with a Westminster Government in just 18 months?
It was, of course, the UK Government’s paid legal adviser, Professor James Crawford, who described the 18-month timetable for transition as realistic in terms of some of the major issues that would be discussed. Given that that is the average of all negotiations throughout the world, if the UK Government’s paid legal adviser—a distinguished professor of international law—describes that timetable as realistic, we are on pretty firm ground in putting it forward.
The essence of the argument for the sterling area is that it is in Scotland’s interests because England is our biggest customer and it is in England’s interests because Scotland is its second-biggest customer. We might even say that it was logical and desirable, except that I did not say that first: it was Alistair Darling, the leader of the no campaign, on “Newsnight” in January this year.
It takes a brass neck to write as Margaret Curran did to Liberal Democrat MPs—I have a letter here that starts “Dear Alistair”; it is to Alistair Carmichael—asking them to turn up to defeat the bedroom tax in the House of Commons and then for 47 Labour MPs, including 10 for Scotland, to forget to turn up to defeat the bedroom tax. When it comes to brass neck, the SNP will have to go a long way to beat the Labour Party’s on the bedroom tax. [Applause.]
Order.
This is an SNP that could not stay up to support the minimum wage and that would not go through the lobbies to protect people against the energy companies that are ripping them off.
The First Minister says that the UK adviser says that it can be done in 18 months. His own adviser says that it cannot be. That must be the first time that he has taken the UK Government’s advice ahead of that of his own advisers.
Alistair Darling has also said:
“But Mr Salmond must have a hidden fallback option because ‘no one but a fool would go into a negotiation if they hadn’t got a plan B’”.
It seems that we have here a fool who has no plan B on the currency.
I must admit some concern about the wellbeing of Colin McKay. Has anyone seen Alex Bell since he appeared on “Newsnight”? Did he get a visit from Shona Robison? Is he in the same gulag as Professor Chris Whatley?
Is the reality not that the First Minister does not want to give the people of Scotland the truth about independence in the debate because his case does not add up? Is the truth not that he cannot stand having a debate with the people of Scotland at all?
The last time that I saw Alex Bell he was appearing on television saying what a nice person I was, unlike Labour special advisers such as Damian McBride, who make lots of money by revealing the extent of bullying, intimidation and all sorts of other things within the previous Labour Government.
Let us put it this way: the report is wrong and the white paper will be definitive on the SNP policy positions. It will also say—of course it should say—that the essence of independence is choice for the people of Scotland so that they can choose their own Government as opposed to having another Government foisted upon them.
I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which the SNP and other parties in an independent Scottish Parliament would not repeal the bedroom tax. Therefore, that is an argument for independence. That assumes that people turn up for the vote and I really think that we deserve an explanation as to why this week, after appealing to Alistair Carmichael to turn up to vote against the bedroom tax, 10 of Scotland’s Labour MPs went missing—absent without leave—and allowed that vote to proceed against the people of Scotland.
Johann Lamont objects to my citing Professor James Crawford and Alistair Darling on the transition timetable and the arguments for a sterling area. I merely put it to her that, if I am able, as I am in this case, to cite them, it will not be the most difficult negotiation that we have ever had, as the people on the other side of the argument think that a sterling area is logical and desirable. It will not be the most difficult transition that we have ever had if even the paid legal adviser of the UK Government, Professor James Crawford, is honest enough to say that the timetable is realistic.
Given that reassurance, I think that we can genuinely say that we can all look forward enthusiastically to the white paper, which will chart Scotland’s new future, with the essence of the argument being, “Let’s get the future of this country into Scottish hands, and let’s make choices for the Scottish people based on the democratic view at election time.”
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. I add my condolences and those of my party to those of members across the chamber on the passing of Helen Eadie. She will be missed by the Parliament, and our thoughts and prayers are with her family and her colleagues at this time.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01666)
No plans in the near future.
Let us return to Professor Chris Whatley. He is a respected academic from the University of Dundee who, a fortnight ago, spoke at a meeting of like-minded Scots. At that meeting, he expressed his support for Scotland staying within the United Kingdom. As thousands of other people across Scotland have done, he gave up some of his free time to debate and discuss the future of our country in a public meeting. We should be welcoming that contribution and the contribution of others to our national debate. Instead, because he disagreed with the SNP’s position, a Government minister contacted his employer to question his integrity.
Was Shona Robison right or wrong to contact the principal’s office?
I see that the much-beloved “angry, intimidating phone call” that better together has been tweeting all over the place has suddenly been missed out of the question—that is understandable, because no such phone call ever took place.
The issue that Shona Robison was pursuing, in answer to a press inquiry, was not that of Professor Whatley’s participation in the no campaign—he is absolutely entitled to participate in it, and I encourage him to do so—but that of his leadership of the 5 million questions project, which says that it has
“the objective neutrality of academia”
and is therefore
“ideally placed as a forum for illuminating discussion.”
I am enthusiastic about that project and about Professor Whatley’s participation in it. I am enthusiastic about the debates that are being held by that project. Do you know why? Because every time there is a debate on the question, the yes side ends up winning. I have example after example.
Professor Whatley should arrange as many debates as possible. If he can manage to arrange 5 million of them, all the better—let us have the 5 million.
I notice that the First Minister was incredibly specific in denying a phone call, but that he did not deny that there was contact between Shona Robison and the office of the principal of the University of Dundee. That says it all: if you say something that the SNP does not like, you can expect an intimidating contact. That is an example, if any were needed, of the SNP’s reaction to something that it does not like to hear.
The First Minister refuses to condemn such tactics and refuses to back free speech. [Interruption.]
Order.
Let us contrast Professor Whatley’s treatment with that of another respected academic. In August, Dr Elliot Bulmer wrote a prominent newspaper article on behalf of the pro-independence campaign; not only that, Yes Scotland paid him for it. If you are an academic who writes in support of independence, the separatists will put a cheque in your hand, but if you are an academic who speaks in support of Scotland staying in the UK, an SNP minister will collar your boss.
Chris Whatley’s treatment by the SNP Government so outraged the academic community that a group of Scottish professors wrote an open letter, in which they said:
“It is unacceptable for a minister to question the integrity of an academic on the basis of his or her political views.”
Emeritus Professors Susan Shaw, Hugh Pennington and Ronald Roberts say that the minister’s actions were wrong. Can I have the First Minister’s guarantee that no member of his Government will act in such a manner again?
The accusation is total and utter nonsense. The words “intimidation” and “Shona Robison” do not sit easily together. [Interruption.]
Ms Marra.
The words “intimidation” and “Ruth Davidson” do not sit easily—[Interruption.]
First Minister, can you sit down?
Ms McMahon, I will not have an argument with you across the chamber. I ask you to desist.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I was just pointing out that the words “intimidation” and “Shona Robison” do not sit easily together. Ruth Davidson lends her argument no favours with the point that she made. If I remember correctly, Elliot Bulmer was subjected to the most vigorous and unfair attacks from Ruth Davidson’s political party, but I suspect that he was able to withstand the no campaign’s assaults.
I was going to say that Ruth Davidson is trying to make a meal of something, but she is not even making a meal—she is creating a morsel out of absolutely nothing whatever. As I said, I absolutely endorse Professor Whatley’s objective and neutral chairing of the 5 million questions campaign and his objective and neutral chairing of the no campaign in Dundee. I endorse Michael Marra, who is one of the directors of the 5 million questions campaign and somebody whom I have still to thank profusely for the decisive role he played in the 2011 election campaign by guiding Iain Gray into a Subway shop.
I fully endorse the 5 million questions campaign. [Interruption.]
Order.
We will attend all the debates that the campaign holds, in the full knowledge that, in the atmosphere of the objective neutrality of academia, the yes campaign will prevail. Given that I have not just endorsed academic freedom and freedom of speech but undertaken to attend 5 million debates, perhaps Ruth Davidson will cease and desist.
Clyde Shipyards
3. To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s discussions regarding the future of the Clyde shipyards. (S4F-01674)
Last week’s announcement by BAE Systems of 1,775 redundancies in its shipbuilding business, including 835 redundancies in Scotland, was deeply disappointing and a major blow to the individuals who will be affected.
The Scottish Government’s first priority must be the workers who will face redundancy. We have offered BAE employees support through the partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—programme. We will work with BAE and the trade unions to provide a tailored package of support, with the aim of minimising the time for which people are out of work.
I thank the First Minister for his comments about those who are likely to lose their jobs and I hope that Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the issues further.
On Tuesday, a United Kingdom defence minister repeated the crystal-clear position that the UK Government does not and would not procure British warships outwith the UK. I am not sure whether industrial language was used when the Deputy First Minister met the unions at the yards, but I understand that she was told the same thing in no uncertain terms.
Will the First Minister now accept that, given that the Clyde yards are owned by a UK defence contractor that relies on UK defence contracts and which wants to build UK defence ships in Glasgow, the biggest threat to the Govan and Scotstoun yards building the type 26 frigates is his desire for Scotland to leave the UK?
I gave my first reply deliberately, because I think that some of the focus in the debate has left the 835 people who face redundancy. I hope to follow the issue up with Drew Smith—and I will do so, because the issue faces people today.
John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon attended a meeting with the unions and management last Friday. I spoke yesterday to Mick Ord, the managing director of naval ships at BAE, about progress in the discussions with the unions that have taken place this week.
We now have visibility of the timescale for the redundancies, which helps with operating the PACE programme. Given the substantial skill set of many of the people involved, we should be optimistic about even the difficult task of placing as many as possible in gainful employment. We have been assured of full co-operation from both unions and BAE management to achieve that as a priority. I really think that that is the substantive issue that we should talk about.
On the matter that the member raised, I do not accept his interpretation of the evidence that was given in the House of Commons. On the contrary, the claims that article 346 would preclude the rest of the UK from ordering the type 26s from the Clyde were absolutely wrong. That argument, which Alistair Carmichael put forward only on Sunday, was then denied by his colleague in Government in front of a House of Commons committee.
That brings us to the nub of the argument, does it not? Do the workers in the yards have the right to expect that every politician will rally behind them, regardless of the constitutional circumstances, or are there people who are conditionally in support of the workers, depending on their favoured constitutional option? That is why Jamie Webster, the union convener at Govan, said on Newsnight Scotland last week:
“If the situation is that Scottish people by democratic vote, vote Yes, I would expect, no sorry, demand, that every single politician of every section supports us to hell and back”.
Perhaps Drew Smith will take those words to heart.
I thank the First Minister for his reply and I am very grateful to the Deputy First Minister and the cabinet secretary for their meetings with the workforce and trade unions. I have written to them and received replies.
Many local businesses in my constituency serve the workforce in the shipyards and will be affected by the announcement. What help will the Scottish Government offer them?
The PACE programme and the Scottish Government will be looking closely at the heavy interconnection of the Clyde yards with local businesses. That will be very much part of our planning.
As an indication of that, in an editorial in The Herald today Sandra White can read of the substantial success of a similar programme in West Lothian, following the closure in Broxburn last year. Obviously a big challenge will have to be met, but the fact that such a challenge has been met pretty successfully in other areas that have faced significant closures should give confidence that the resolve will be there to do everything that we can do for the workers and, as Sandra White rightly says, the attendant businesses that supply the yards.
Question 5 is from Neil Findlay.
Medical Overtime
5. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to address the amount that the national health service spends on medical overtime. (S4F-01673)
In this year, £60 million has been invested across NHS Scotland to increase the capacity of the service. It includes, for example, £8.7 million in NHS Lanarkshire, including for recruitment of 54 consultants, nursing and other clinical support staff; £6.9 million in NHS Forth Valley, including for recruitment of new consultant nurses and other clinical support staff; and £2 million in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, for orthopaedics, ophthalmology, neurosurgery, neurology and imaging. Those efforts build on the 23.4 per cent increase in the number of consultants who work in the national health service since this Government took office.
Vacancy rates in the NHS are up, and Audit Scotland has highlighted a 62 per cent increase in spending on agency nursing and a 23 per cent increase in payments to the private sector. Now, we find that some consultants are doubling their salary on triple time in the evenings and at weekends. Will the First Minister end crisis management in the NHS? Will he commit to staffing our hospitals properly?
Yes; we do staff our hospitals properly, which is why, even in these stringent financial times, the number of qualified nurses has increased by more than 1,000 under the Scottish National Party Government. The capacity of the NHS is increasing all the time, and patient satisfaction with the NHS is very high indeed.
Even given the real-terms increase that this Government pledged and has delivered to the NHS revenue budget, we all understand the current and, indeed, pretty much constant pressures on our national health service, which is why we have responded in full measure.
Perhaps Neil Findlay will consider what would have happened if Labour had either continued with its indecisive attitude to a real-terms increase in the national health service budget before the last election in Scotland, or followed practice in Wales, where Labour is in government and there has been a real-terms decrease in NHS funding. Perhaps some consideration of what would have happened under those circumstances will be forthcoming from Neil Findlay.
I thank members for their patience and indulgence. Question 4 is from Rod Campbell.
China
4. To ask the First Minister what the consequences are of his trip to China. (S4F-01683)
I am delighted to say that the visit cemented Scotland’s valuable links with China and Hong Kong. A delegation of 30 Scottish companies in the oil and gas and construction sectors were on the trade mission. Some excellent contracts and deals were signed, and there was engagement with universities; the designation of Heriot-Watt University as another Confucius university is a substantial step forward.
The oil and gas involvement was particularly useful and involved the China National Offshore Oil Corporation—CNOOC—and Sinopec, which are two of the biggest oil and gas companies in the world; Sinopec has 1 million employees. Taking a dozen Scottish oil and gas service companies into the heart of decision making in that huge combine is of huge importance. I think that we will get substantial results from the visit, thereby building on the progress that has been made in economic and trade relationships with China in recent years.
Between 2010-11 and 2011-12, the number of Chinese students studying at universities and colleges in Scotland rose by 22 per cent to 8,075. What steps can the Scottish Government take to ensure that Scotland remains an attractive place for Chinese students to study?
Scotland is a hugely attractive place for Chinese students and other international students to study, which is why we have a record number of international students in our universities this year, as well as a record number of Scottish students.
I have to say that the major obstacle is, of course, the United Kingdom Government’s attitude to education visas. We had a spectacular instance of how self-defeating that can be during my trip to China. For some inexplicable reason, the United Kingdom Border Agency decided to order out two Hanban teachers of Mandarin—paid for by China—in Scottish schools. Luckily, we were able to apply pressure to reverse that ridiculous decision, but the threat remains to other teachers and other international students.
Most things in politics and Government have two sides—people just have to take what they think is the best option. However, I cannot for the life of me see any reason why it would be in anyone’s interests to restrict the relationship that we have with China through the five Confucius universities that we now have, which is more than any other country in the world per head of population, or the interrelationships and the valuable immediate boost to education and the long-term boost to the Scottish economy of having international students in Scotland. If any member can enlighten me as to what on earth goes on in the minds of the Home Office and the Border Agency in pursuing such a restrictive policy, I would be interested to hear that. Incidentally, that shows one of the big advantages that we would gain from taking control of those things in Scotland.
The First Minister was a little less critical of the UK Government when he was in Hong Kong last week, when he said that Scotland is
“in a strong position”
because
“We share a ... regulatory system with London”.
Should we continue to share a regulatory system with London?
I am delighted that my speeches are read—although I hope not just The Daily Telegraph’s unique interpretation of the speech that I made in Hong Kong is read. That policy position has been put forward in a number of papers on these matters. I am sure that Gavin Brown has fully grasped the opportunities. The speech in Hong Kong went down extremely well in extolling the virtues and success of the Scottish financial sector, which was an excellent thing to do. We should not and will not neglect the opportunities that come through the Scottish connection with Hong Kong and the range of global Scots, who are working hard for Scottish business and interests.
Perhaps we should have a more formal arrangement, because I would not want Gavin Brown to miss out on any of my speeches or to rely on press interpretations of them. Perhaps a direct line of information is called for, so I undertake to see whether that is possible.
HIV (Awareness and Understanding)
6. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government and the national health service are taking to increase awareness and understanding of HIV. (S4F-01667)
HIV remains a public health priority for the Scottish Government, which is why we have provided £273,000 of funding for Waverley Care in the past two years to deliver the always hear campaign, which seeks to increase awareness and understanding of HIV and to challenge stigma. The Government has also provided £270,000 of funding each year for HIV Scotland, a national independent policy organisation for HIV. We will be working with partners, including national health service boards, to promote world AIDS day on 1 December.
The First Minister will be aware of the study that was released this week by Waverley Care, which shows that we as a nation still have some way to go on awareness. That charity, supported by the campaigner Annie Lennox, has identified the on-going stigma that the First Minister mentioned as a particular challenge for people who have HIV in achieving diagnosis and accessing treatment. Does the First Minister agree that stigma is a major problem? Will he continue to ensure that the Scottish Government does everything it can to ensure that there are no obstacles to people coming forward for treatment and medical help?
I am glad that Marco Biagi has taken the opportunity to raise that important subject. Incidentally, it gives us all the opportunity to acknowledge Annie Lennox’s first-class work in the area.
Waverley Care’s campaign has in recent months distributed resource packs that focus on highlighting the issue to young people. It has also distributed 1,500 resource packs to churches around the country. In addition, in early 2014, the campaign will begin work with health professionals because people living with HIV have reported that they often experience stigma.
I hope that that reassures Marco Biagi that we take the matter extremely seriously. We will continue our support, and I am sure that all members will collectively endorse those efforts and urge us to do even more.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In his earlier response to Miss Davidson, the First Minister asserted that Dr Elliot Bulmer had been subject to personal attack and abuse from her and her party. Given the substance of her earlier question, we reject that accusation fully. The First Minister qualified that by saying that it was from memory. In the ordinary course of events, he ascribes the widest possible latitude to that resource, but I say to you, Presiding Officer, that he should either come forward with substantive evidence to support that accusation or correct the record at the earliest possible opportunity.
That is not a point of order, and Jackson Carlaw knows it. As I have said repeatedly, members themselves are responsible for what they say in the chamber.