Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02087)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
In 2012, the then health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, proposed changes to mental health services in Lanarkshire. They were opposed by her Cabinet colleague and local MSP Alex Neil. She addressed his concerns and the professional medical advice was that the changes should go ahead. When Alex Neil became health secretary in September 2012, he ordered that the changes be reversed, against medical and patient opinion. He then deceived this Parliament and deceived the people of Scotland by saying—
Order. Ms Lamont.
—that he would take no part in the decision he had already made. If Alex Neil will not resign for deceiving Parliament, will the First Minister sack him?
We will not have members accusing each other of deceiving across the chamber.
The answer is no.
Perhaps the First Minister should look at the documents that my colleague John Pentland obtained through freedom of information, because we now know that, on 26 September 2012, Alex Neil’s office emailed this instruction to officials. I quote:
“Mr Neil is clear in his view that acute mental health facilities should be retained in both Wishaw and Monklands. The Cabinet Secretary has asked that you seek agreement from NHS Lanarkshire to reconfigure their plans accordingly.”
With that order, he reversed Nicola Sturgeon’s policy, which was made on the advice of medical professionals and backed by patients. He then told the Parliament, the head of the national health service and the head of the civil service that he would absent himself from a decision on those services, even though he had already made the decision.
If Alex Neil will not resign because of this behaviour, will the First Minister sack him?
That is the same question that she asked before, and I gave her the answer in answer to the first question. Just because she says deceiving instead of misleading, it does not remove the responsibility to try to give some substance to the charges that she is making.
I looked at this issue on 14 February 2013. I gave a substantial reply to Ms McMahon, the MSP who raised it with me, in terms of her question as to whether Alex Neil was in breach of the ministerial code. I pointed out the following—I will read it to Johann Lamont:
“In the light of questions in the Scottish Parliament on 26 September 2012”—
that is the date that Johann Lamont mentioned, but she forgot to say about the questions in the Parliament—
“about these proposed changes and the narrowing parliamentary focus on the impact of proposals for Monklands Hospital, Mr Neil became concerned that there could be a perception of a conflict of interest.” [Interruption.]
Order.
I will continue:
“Accordingly, he agreed, that day, with the Director General of Health and Social Care, Derek Feeley, that all matters relating to mental health services at Monklands Hospital should be dealt with by the Minister for Public Health. Mr Feeley informed the Permanent Secretary on 27 September.”
That is exactly how ministers should behave under these circumstances. [Interruption.]
Order.
I can say to the Labour Party that there is another aspect to this that it should bear in mind. The question of mental health services in Lanarkshire affects the whole area of the health board. It has a constituency aspect, as it has an aspect to all constituencies in that health board area. To define it purely as a constituency issue ignores the fact that the health service affects and serves all of the population. I looked at the issue carefully last year and I came to the conclusion that Mr Neil had acted perfectly properly. I replied in those terms to the member concerned, and if Johann Lamont would like to look at that reply and acknowledge the sequence of events, she will see that that reply is validated by the evidence.
The First Minister needs to look at the sequence of events, because it is all about the timing. Let me help him.
At 9.43 am on 26 September 2012, Alex Neil’s office issued the order to reverse Nicola Sturgeon’s decision. At 2 pm, which is after 9.43 am, Alex Neil told this chamber that NHS Lanarkshire was reviewing its decision—but he had already ordered the board to change its position. On 19 December 2012, when asked about that decision, he told this Parliament:
“I decided early on in my tenure to give responsibility for that matter to my deputy Michael Matheson, as I did not want any perception of any potential conflict of interest between my role as the MSP for Airdrie and Shotts—where Monklands hospital resides—and my role as cabinet secretary.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2012; c 14922.]
The fact is that there was no perception of potential; there was the reality of the decision that Alex Neil had already taken and then tried to cover up. I ask the First Minister again: if Alex Neil will not resign, will the First Minister sack him?
Asking the question for the third time elicits the same answer: no, I will not, because I reviewed the evidence and came to the conclusion that Mr Neil acted perfectly properly.
All that Johann Lamont has done is cite exactly what I said to her colleague all those months ago. At that time, I detailed the sequence of events on 26 September 2012, and that sequence of events has been validated. The great revelation that Johann Lamont brings to the chamber is merely a confirmation of the sequence of events that was detailed to her colleague last year. [Interruption.] Of course that was the sequence of events. As said in the letter, after question time on 26 September, Mr Neil asked for advice and took the requisite action.
The ministerial code makes it quite clear how ministers should act. It also makes quite clear the First Minister’s role in judging that. Unlike the Labour Party, we are the only Administration that has put in independent oversight of the ministerial code. On six occasions, people such as Johann Lamont have come to this chamber and said that there has been an enormous scandal. Because that affected me, and because I have been under question, I have referred those things to independent oversight. On six occasions, I have been cleared by that commission, and—do you know what?—hardly ever after I have been cleared have the people who made allegations in this chamber of dreadful doings been prepared to acknowledge the independent oversight.
I looked at Mr Neil’s conduct and gave an explanation to Johann Lamont’s colleague that said exactly what happened. In reasonableness, unless she has some dramatic revelation to bring—which she has not—she should accept that Mr Neil not just acted to the benefit of his constituents but discharged his responsibilities as health secretary. That is why he took the action that he did and that is why the answer to Johann Lamont’s question is no—for the third time.
That was just noise; it did not answer the question. Alex Neil made a decision and then extracted himself and said that if there were further decisions, somebody else would make them, but he had already made the decision in the morning.
We have established that Alex Neil has not been clear on what he did in relation to services in NHS Lanarkshire, but we wonder how far up the Government the process went. Peter Housden wrote to Siobhan McMahon and said:
“I would reiterate that should a ministerial decision be required ... this will be taken by the Minister for Public Health.”
Clearing Alex Neil, the First Minister, as we heard, wrote to Siobhan McMahon, saying the same thing. However, there was no need for a ministerial decision to be made by Michael Matheson, because Alex Neil had already made his ministerial decision. Were Peter Housden and the First Minister in on this—[Interruption.]
Order.
—or did Alex Neil play them for fools? I ask again: if Alex Neil will not resign for this behaviour, will the First Minister sack him?
I suppose that in the sense that I am the First Minister of Scotland, I am in on everything that happens in the Government. All that Johann Lamont is doing by asking something for the fourth time is making herself and her party look ridiculous.
Alex Neil has a long record of campaigning for the health service in Lanarkshire. If Alex Neil had not campaigned as a candidate, there would not be an accident and emergency department in Monklands. It is quite clear that the Labour Party’s interest in mental health services in Lanarkshire is not to do with facilities for patients; it is just an argument to try to get at a Scottish National Party minister.
Having heard a detailed explanation of events from the permanent secretary and the First Minister all that time ago, will Johann Lamont not accept that the answer to her question is no? Perhaps the next time that she comes to the chamber, she will talk about the substantive issues that affect the people of Scotland.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02084)
No plans in the near future, as far as I know.
I am sure that the whole chamber is delighted to hear that Mo Farah will compete in the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. We want the world’s elite to compete in Scotland. Glasgow’s organising committee has worked hard to ensure that venues such as the SSE Hydro, the velodrome and the Emirates arena were completed on time and on budget, and it should be given all due credit. However, its hard work has been undermined this week by the shambolic ticketing fiasco that has seen tens of thousands of families spend hours on hold, and still they have no prospect of tickets. Does the First Minister agree that it is outrageous that a hired-in company, paid handsomely for its work, is now damaging the reputation of our games, and what does he plan to do about it?
The organising committee has apologised for the delay and frustration that people experienced in trying to get the last of the tickets when they were made available for sale, and it was right to do so. Along with our partners in Glasgow City Council, the Cabinet Secretary for Commonwealth Games, Sport, Equalities and Pensioners’ Rights is meeting the organising committee this afternoon, and we hope that out of that meeting will come a resolution of the situation in terms of practical action.
Recognising the organising committee’s apology and recognising the frustration that many people feel, let us get matters into some sort of context. We are dealing with a games that, almost uniquely among the games of the past generation, is on time and on budget, where every facility is complete and where the transformation of the east end of Glasgow is absolutely amazing, and for which over 1 million tickets have already been sold. The last 100,000 or so tickets are tickets that the organising committee tried to get back from sponsors and international federations, in order to give the public more chance of getting to the games.
Of course, the organising committee will be able to sort out the situation that has caused frustration, but even the people who have been frustrated will recognise that there is an overwhelming demand for tickets and that the organising committee is doing absolutely everything that it can to ensure that every venue is full for the Commonwealth games. It will sort out the problems and people will get another opportunity to buy tickets, but let us put the issue in the context of Glasgow and Scotland enjoying and experiencing the most superb sporting and cultural event that we have ever seen.
I have acknowledged the great work that Dave Grevemberg and his team have done in preparing for the games, both in physical infrastructure and in the way in which we have projected both my city of Glasgow and Scotland to the world.
I welcome the First Minister’s announcement that Shona Robison will meet officials at the organising committee. I trust that, as a newly promoted Cabinet-level minister, she will bring the problem to a speedy conclusion, because it is not about patching up the system and hoping for the best. We need to find out what went wrong, fix it and reassure the families who are still waiting for tickets that the system is back on track. Can the First Minister assure us that his cabinet secretary will have the issue fixed by the weekend so that the ticketing site will open on Monday morning? If it does not, will she take responsibility?
My goodness—I thank Ruth Davidson for her entirely supportive and collegiate remarks on the Commonwealth games. The cabinet secretary and our partners in Glasgow City Council have, for the last seven years, worked together on a cross-party basis to try to bring about the games. Many decisions have had to be made in order to arrive at the excellent position that we are now in. Ruth Davidson asks why the situation arose. It arose because there was an overwhelming demand for the last 10 per cent of tickets as a result of the fact that the games will be a sell-out in every event.
The organising committee has of course apologised for the breakdown in Ticketmaster’s systems, which is a matter of great regret and frustration, and of course the cabinet secretary and our partners in Glasgow City Council are working with the organising committee to sort out the issue. However, given all the success that the organising committee has had in delivering the venues and the games and in taking the big decisions, and recognising that we are in the current situation because of that committee’s attempts to get more tickets to satisfy the overwhelming demand, can Ruth Davidson and her party not find it in their hearts right now to try to get behind the organising committee to help it sort out the difficulty, as opposed to making the most party-political petty points about it?
We have two constituency questions.
The First Minister will be aware of the very serious disturbance at HMP Grampian that involved 39 inmates in a 14-hour siege overnight on Tuesday and into yesterday morning. Although no one was injured, I understand that significant damage has been caused to the Ellon wing of the new prison. What steps will the First Minister’s Government take to ensure that good order is maintained in the future?
Substantial steps have already been taken. As the member correctly says, the issue was brought to a conclusion, and the Scottish Prison Service has made the decision to relocate prisoners. It is of course not unknown for new prisons to have such incidents—it has happened a number of times in the past—but that does not make the actions acceptable or permissible. The member can be reassured that the appropriate action has been taken to ensure that our newest prison in Scotland shall perform efficiently and properly.
We should deprecate such behaviour in prisons. While recognising the action that the Scottish Prison Service is taking to sort things out, let us be under no illusion as to who is responsible for the unacceptable behaviour—that is, the perpetrators of that behaviour.
The First Minister will be aware that, last week, GE Caledonian announced 170 redundancies at its plant at Prestwick, which will reduce the staff number there to around 450. Although specialist servicing of the CF6 engines is a highly skilled job in a competitive marketplace, what help can the Scottish Government, through Scottish Enterprise and other agencies, give to that high-quality company and its employees at this difficult time?
As the member will know, GE Caledonian has already been offered and received a regional selective assistance grant to try to safeguard the jobs. He will also know that we are dealing with the opening of a new facility in Taiwan that is extremely competitive in terms of some of the functions and work that is done at Prestwick. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth met the company yesterday to discuss exactly those matters. The local partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—chair and team are available to provide support for the affected employees, and the member can be absolutely assured that we will do everything in our power to maintain, and I hope in future increase, maximum employment in the Prestwick facility.
Tax Avoidance
To ask the First Minister what steps revenue Scotland would take to prevent tax avoidance practices in the event that Scotland had greater responsibility for taxation. (S4F-02102)
The Scottish Government intends to take the toughest possible line on aggressive tax avoidance. We are determined to act decisively on avoidance, for example, of devolved taxation. The Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill, which is currently before the Parliament, contains powers that will enable revenue Scotland to take robust action to counteract tax avoidance, including the introduction of a wide-ranging general anti-avoidance rule for devolved taxes, as Patrick Harvie knows.
The Scottish Government will seek to replicate that approach in developing the Scottish tax system following independence.
In recent days there have been further revelations about the scale of the scandal of tax avoidance in the United Kingdom, from the members of Take That and other wealthy individuals in the Icebreaker scam to Amazon’s corporate tax bill of £4.2 million after sales of £4.3 billion, while HM Revenue and Customs seems most concerned with selling citizens’ tax data to the highest bidder.
Will the First Minister join in the many and growing calls for a boycott of Amazon until it starts paying its fair share? Does he agree that only Europe-wide co-operation between countries on corporate tax levels can stop the loopholes that disreputable companies such as Amazon are so determined to wriggle through?
I will not join a call for a boycott. That would have an impact on Scottish workers and Scottish jobs, as Patrick Harvie should know. However, what I will say is that I deprecate aggressive tax avoidance. Tax evasion, of course, is illegal.
While deprecating such behaviour, we should look for the solution in the tax system itself. A simple, transparent tax system reduces the opportunity for aggressive tax avoidance. On page 121 of “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland”, Patrick Harvie will find the actions that the Scottish Government in an independent Parliament would seek to take.
I draw Patrick Harvie’s attention to what we are already doing, in this Parliament, with the new tax powers that are being introduced. We have chosen not to ask HMRC to administer the new taxes but to set up revenue Scotland. Michael Clancy, the director of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland said in evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee:
“In the evidence that we are giving on the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill, we are looking at its provisions on the Scottish general anti-avoidance rule. We have compared those provisions with the current general anti-abuse provisions in the Finance Act 2013 and we think that the Scottish GAAR provisions are much better. They are less complex and should prove to be more effective.”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 19 March 2014; c 4205.]
I think that we have reason for hope and demonstration that what we are introducing with the new responsibilities that we are getting will provide a template for a tax system in an independent Scotland that will secure and protect us against the sort of unacceptable, aggressive tax avoidance that is widespread in the UK tax system.
Retirement Age
To ask the First Minister what the impact on Scotland will be of United Kingdom Government plans to raise the retirement age. (S4F-02090)
Analysis published this week shows that a 65-year-old can expect the lifetime value of their state pension to be around £11,000 less for women and £10,000 less for men in Scotland than the average for the UK as a whole. What is more, the UK has based its plans to increase the state pension age on increasing life expectancy, but the reality is that Scottish life expectancy is currently the lowest of all the UK countries. That looks to us like a policy that is made in London without consideration of fairness in Scotland.
The First Minister will have welcomed the admission by UK pensions minister Steve Webb MP that state pensions will be secure regardless of the outcome of September’s referendum, contrary to propaganda from the no campaign.
Does the First Minister agree that pensions will be guaranteed following independence and that, given that Labour’s shadow secretary of state for work and pensions, Rachel Reeves MP, announced that Labour would support the Tory-Lib Dem UK Government pension reforms, the only way to develop a pension regime that is appropriate to Scotland’s circumstances is to vote yes in September’s referendum?
I do agree with that. In drawing attention to the comments of Steve Webb before a Westminster committee, Kenneth Gibson draws attention to an important point, which is that the no campaign has spent a good amount of time trying to tell people in Scotland that their pensions would not be safe in an independent Scotland. Now the UK pensions secretary, Steve Webb MP, has admitted, in front of a Westminster committee, that that is not the case.
We are entitled to ask when the better together, Labour-Tory, Tory-Labour leaflets that allege something that is clearly not true are going to be withdrawn, and whether the Liberal Democrats—Steve Webb is a Liberal Democrat member of Parliament—will insist that their better together colleagues stop trying to peddle myths and scaremonger to the people of Scotland.
It is not myth and scaremongering. Independent experts tell us that pensions and pension-related benefits are £100 higher per head of population in Scotland than they are in the rest of the UK, which is a good example of pooling and sharing our resources. Indeed, John Swinney even set up a working group because of his concerns about the affordability of pensions in an independent Scotland.
Can we get a question, Ms Baillie?
At the start of the week, the Deputy First Minister told us that pensions are affordable because we die younger. What an appalling lack of ambition. Surely the First Minister should come to the chamber and tell us how to improve the health and wellbeing of pensioners now, instead of basing his pensions policy on people dying earlier.
That is what we have been doing by freezing the council tax for pensioners, and by protecting the bus pass for pensioners. All those things would be at risk if Jackie Baillie and Johann Lamont had their way. [Interruption.]
Order.
Steve Webb said to the Westminster committee that state pensions would be “secure”—I am quoting exactly—in an independent Scotland. How can we reconcile that comment, which was made in Parliament, with the sort of material that Jackie Baillie comes up with day and daily? She chunters away, but that will not alter the fact that her scaremongering has been confounded by her own side.
Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government plans to introduce a lower threshold than £150,000 for claims heard in the sheriff courts, following the recommendation in the Justice Committee’s report on the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill. (S4F-02096)
In 2007, the previous Administration appointed Lord Gill to undertake a wide-ranging review of the civil court system in Scotland. In 2009, the Scottish civil courts review published its report and recommendations, which included raising the exclusive competence of the sheriff court to £150,000. Lord Gill continued to strongly support that limit in his recent appearance at the Justice Committee.
We consider that £150,000 is the appropriate limit. We are, of course, aware that although almost all stakeholders agree that the current £5,000 limit is too low, there is a range of views on what the new increased limit should be, and we are happy to consider those views, including those that are expressed in the Justice Committee’s report.
Does the First Minister accept that the proposed threshold for the exclusive competence of the sheriff court is more than five times the average full-time annual wage, and that, to an employee who loses income because of an injury at work, for example, a settlement of £10,000 or £20,000 can make the difference between penury and maintaining their standard of living? Will the Government support amendments to the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill to ensure that people who are on low and average incomes are not disadvantaged by their case no longer being taken to the Court of Session and the loss of their automatic right to representation by an advocate?
I am not certain that the member fully appreciates the fact that Lord Gill’s aim in proposing the reform is to make justice more accessible to more people and to lower the cost of getting justice, and not to disadvantage people. The member seems to be looking at it from the opposite point of view.
The member quoted the Justice Committee, so I point out that paragraph 8 of the committee’s report says:
“The Committee supports the proposal to increase the limit of privative jurisdiction of the sheriff court in order to free up the Court of Session to deal with the most complex and serious cases and to ensure that the civil court system works more efficiently and economically.”
The Justice Committee acknowledged the purpose of the reform. We are now considering what the Justice Committee said and its suggestion that increasing the limit from £5,000 to £150,000 might be too big a leap. We are looking at what other people have recommended. We will take that into account in coming to a final conclusion on the proposal.
However, can the member just accept that Lord Gill’s purpose is to make the administration of justice in Scotland more efficient, to make it more accessible to ordinary people, to cut the prohibitive costs of the Court of Session, and to make justice accessible to more people in the sheriff courts around Scotland?
Scottish Business Development Bank
To ask the First Minister who took the decision not to proceed with the Scottish business development bank and when. (S4F-02089)
The banking strategy, which was published on 10 May 2013, set out plans to examine the creation of a Scottish business development bank to provide additional borrowing to small and medium-sized businesses.
The finance secretary, John Swinney, gave the proposal careful consideration, and what emerged from that analysis was that without the powers of independence the bank’s borrowing would not be additional to the Scottish Government’s borrowing limit. In other words, if borrowing were extended to companies, it would have to come off capital investment in Scotland. Mr Swinney therefore decided on 17 March that it would not be feasible to proceed until we had exactly those powers.
I know that Gavin Brown is a reasonable man and that he will recognise that, to get the additionality we were looking for from the business bank proposal, we would need exactly the powers that have been stated. I know, therefore, that he will join his colleague Murdo Fraser in recognising that these powers are essential if we are to take some of the exciting initiatives that we want to take in an independent Scotland.
The First Minister said earlier that he is
“in on everything that happens”,
so he should know that his banking strategy document says that
“this strategy should apply to Scotland’s approach to banking regardless of Scotland’s constitutional future.”
It also says that the money was going to come from
“accessing new opportunities through European funding streams”.
It was a good idea. Will the First Minister look at it again today and consider reopening the case as published in his document?
The member is quoting from the entire banking strategy, of which the business bank was one proposal. As for detail of the proposal, I point out that any additional borrowing would have to be deducted from other purposes. [Interruption.] I know that Gavin Brown does not want to address that point because it comes down to the financial straitjacket that his Government and unionist politicians have been satisfied to put the people of Scotland in.
As for the point about accessing European funding, Mr Brown might remember that in 2009 I launched the Scottish Investment Bank. It would be fair to say that at the time some colleagues in the Parliament—not, I think, Gavin Brown himself—were less than enthusiastic about the potential success of that bank. I can tell Mr Brown that in 2012-13 the Scottish Investment Bank equity and debt scheme invested £32.4 million in 106 companies, which leveraged £60.4 million from private sector partners.
The Scottish Investment Bank now has a portfolio of 237 investee companies employing 4,000 people. Because the Conservative Party does not seem to acknowledge that this might be important, given Ruth Davidson’s call to Tories to not say anything unless they know what they are talking about—which I think is very pertinent—I point out that the companies that have benefited include Touch Bionics in Livingston, Spark Energy in the Borders, Allthings in Dundee and many others across Scotland. All of them think that the work of the Scottish Investment Bank is important, and many of them think that, with the additional borrowing powers of an independent Scotland, we can bring about even more business development across the country.
That ends First Minister’s questions.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Point of Order