First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00608)
Later today I will discuss with Pat Watters, the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the very important joint announcement that is being made today on the United Kingdom Government’s misguided plans to abolish the existing council tax benefit and cut the successor budget by 10 per cent.
As members know, council tax benefit is being devolved to Scotland and to English local authorities, but the sting in the tail is a 10 per cent cut in the budget. More than 0.5 million low-income Scots benefit from council tax benefit. I am delighted to say that, by agreement with our local authorities, the Scottish Government and COSLA will jointly fund the £40 million shortfall, which means that there will be no cuts in council tax benefit in Scotland in 2013-14.
We will work with councils when the universal credit is announced in 2014-15 to ensure that we continue to protect some of the lowest-income Scots in the country. I am sure that all members in the chamber will welcome that joint action with Scotland’s local authorities.
In March 2011, just before the Scottish Parliament election, the First Minister announced that Doosan Power Systems Ltd was going to invest £170 million in a new research facility in Renfrew and a manufacturing facility elsewhere in Scotland. In the same week, he suggested that the factory was going to Dundee. That was welcome news for the Scottish economy and the renewables industry.
Since then, the word “Doosan” has been a key part of the Scottish Government litany of supposed economic successes—indeed, John Swinney was talking about Doosan just last Sunday. However, it has now been reported that the First Minister was told in December last year that Doosan was scrapping the planned investment. The First Minister announced that Doosan was coming; when was he going to tell us that it is not?
I am sure that Johann Lamont really meant to welcome the important news on council tax benefit, as I am sure she would like to welcome the better news that we had yesterday on the Scottish economy.
Johann Lamont could not have listened very well to John Swinney’s interview on Sunday, because it discussed Doosan’s announcement that it would not proceed with its investments in offshore wind—a decision that the company made last December. That is what the interview was about; I have the text of it here. I am not certain that Johann Lamont actually listened to the interview that she is citing.
The reason why we are supportive of Doosan is that it employs 1,300 people in Scotland. The research and development in its worldwide skill centre for boilermaking is continuing that investment, and we expect it to make more important investments in Scotland in the future. John Swinney was talking last Sunday not only about the decision on offshore wind, but about the hope and belief that Doosan will continue to be an important investor in the Scottish economy, which is why he is meeting the company in South Korea today.
The fact of the matter is that the First Minister announced that project. He said that it was a “great stride forward”, but why would he not tell us of the stride backwards? It has been reported that the Scottish Government wanted that news to be suppressed until after the local council elections. A Scottish Government spokesman in the same article denies that and is reported to have said that the Scottish Government wanted the statement out earlier.
Page 84 of the First Minister’s budget bill reports the planned investment, yet on 25 January and 8 February, when that document was debated in this chamber, the new information was not provided. If it is true that the First Minister wanted the statement out earlier, why did he not make it? Clearly, Doosan was not sensitive about it, because it let the story out at a trade fair in Denmark. Surely the Scottish people deserve to hear the news before the Danes do.
The ABCs of international investment and our relationship with companies mean that we do not make companies’ announcements for them. [Laughter.]
Order.
If Doosan wishes to make an announcement to its supply chain, it has the right to do that; that is its decision. However, the announcement that Doosan made and the information were available. That is why John Swinney was discussing it with Douglas Fraser on the radio last Sunday. Johann Lamont clearly did not listen to the radio interview that she cited.
What has happened since Doosan made its decision last December? We have had an announcement from Samsung of 500 jobs resulting from its investment in Methil, which will be the centre of its research and development for offshore wind. We have had an announcement from Gamesa of 700 jobs in the port of Leith. We have substantial expectations for both Nigg and Dundee as the offshore renewables industry gathers strength.
Many companies are investing in offshore wind, and many of those companies are investing in Scotland. However, one thing is absolutely sure: as that succession of announcements is being made, and as thousands of jobs are brought to the economy, Johann Lamont will not welcome a single one.
I am beginning to get how this works. If it is good news, the First Minister announces it; if it is bad news, it is not in the business of the Government to make announcements on behalf of companies and it would be highly inappropriate for us to take any responsibility because that is all the job of the companies.
The fact of the matter is that, regardless of the other investment announcements, this is a hugely significant decision for Doosan that we must all be concerned about, given the implications for jobs and our shared commitment to reaching our climate change targets.
I repeat the point that, in January and February, we debated a budget that included the positive news of the investment, but the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth did not mention the new information. Instead, we are told, he mentioned it in the bygoing in a politics debate on a television programme months later. The fact of the matter is that the First Minister, his ministers and their officials knew at the end of last year about this significant announcement. In that case, why did he, his ministers, his MSPs and his press office keep on talking as if the investment was coming?
I know that Doosan invests in much more in Scotland than just this project, but I think that we all know what impression the First Minister wanted to create. Why did he allow his colleagues and his press office to keep on giving the impression that this project was coming to Scotland when he knew that it was not?
I think that the rule is, actually, that if it is good news, Johann Lamont will not welcome it, and, if it is bad news, the Labour Party will revel in it.
The reason why we keep a good relationship with Doosan is that it is an important employer in Scotland. We have every expectation that Doosan will make further investment in Scotland. I repeat that the world specialism research and development centre for boiler production continues. That is an important investment in the Scottish economy; Doosan is, therefore, an important investor.
Not every major engineering company in the world will go into the offshore wind market. Many are, however, and are combining with Scottish companies all around the coastline of Scotland. That is news that we should welcome.
I repeat that, since December, when Doosan made its decision as a result of what it described as the “liquidity crisis” in the eurozone, huge investments have been made in the Scottish economy in relation to offshore wind. The question is, are we prepared to welcome the investors combining with our companies to chart the future of engineering in Scotland? This side of the chamber says, “Yes, we should,” and, “Yes, we are.” The Labour Party seems to be mired in that streak of negativity that cost it so dear in last year’s elections.
The First Minister again wilfully misses the point. We were unable to respond to a significant decision because the First Minister chose not to tell us. This is not about talking the Scottish economy or Scotland up or down; it is about the First Minister’s integrity and the honesty of his Government.
If this were a one-off, we might give the First Minister the benefit of the doubt, but there is a pattern. Before the last election, while he was taking the credit for Doosan’s planned investment, he used taxpayers’ cash to keep the truth about his local income tax plans hidden from the public. When he was forced to come clean, he chose to do so on the day that his pal Rupert Murdoch got embroiled in the hacking scandal. When academics criticise the First Minister, his aide writes false letters in their name recanting. Good grief. The Advertising Standards Authority has even had to pull him up about the pandas.
The serious point is that we have a shared concern about the decision about Doosan. If the First Minister will suppress serious issues such as the Doosan investment announcement before the local elections, goodness knows what he will conceal before the referendum. After this, how can any of us believe a word that he says?
Let me quote exactly what John Swinney said on Sunday morning. He said:
“Doosan are one of the companies I plan to visit when I’m in Korea. Obviously the decisions that Doosan have made have been explained by the wider economic circumstances within the Eurozone particularly. I want to ... make clear the very great encouragement and the very real opportunities that exist within the renewable energy market”.
Where was the famed Labour press office when John Swinney was discussing Doosan last Sunday morning? Where were the statements from Johann Lamont to say that she is very concerned about what has happened with the Doosan investment? There was also a lack of statements of encouragement on the Samsung and Gamesa investments. There was silence from the Labour Party, which was asleep on Sunday morning.
Johann Lamont says all these dreadful things to me, but I know that she does not actually mean them. How do I know that? I know that because I have been reading LabourHame.
Oh, no! You have not!
Yes I have. I confess it. I have been reading LabourHame. I know that it is a bad habit, and I have to get out of it. [Laughter.]
Dominic Dowling, who is the election agent for every Labour candidate in Glasgow—including what is left of the Labour Party in Johann Lamont’s constituency—said about the Labour Party’s attitude to me that
“to deny he has connected with the electorate, in a way that none of Labour’s post-devolution Scottish leaders has managed to do, is ridiculous.”
Out of the mouth and tweets in LabourHame of the man who is masterminding Labour’s campaign in Glasgow comes the essential word: Labour leadership—“ridiculous”.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00605)
I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future, but I would really like to meet him today, when he is visiting Scotland, to find out what extra powers Scotland will receive. I am sure that he will spend an enormous amount of time spelling out exactly the additional powers that he promised us in February.
I am sure that we will hear a great deal from the First Minister about the additional powers that will be coming to the Scottish Parliament as of yesterday and how he plans to use them.
Does the First Minister support
“the essential role nuclear weapons play in”
the NATO
“Alliance’s strategy of war prevention”?
That support is a precondition for new members in chapter 4 of the 1995 “Study on NATO Enlargement”.
There are two things to say. First, 25 out of the 28 NATO members are non-nuclear countries. Secondly, the First Minister believes that investment in new nuclear weapons in Scotland would be a total and utter obscenity and that the Parliament has been absolutely right to reject any suggestion of renewing Trident, just as it has looked forward to the removal of Trident nuclear weapons from Scottish soil.
Those 25 members are signed up to the strategy.
I am proud that the United Kingdom is a founder member of NATO. I am proud that, after the unimaginable horrors on our doorstep, we chose to stand together with other responsible nations to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again. I am proud that for more than 60 years the UK, with NATO, has acted to protect its allies in Europe. That has been the case in spite of the Scottish National Party’s opposition to the missions in Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo—a mission to stop ethnic cleansing on Europe’s shore, which the First Minister disgracefully called “unpardonable folly”.
We hear that the SNP is to debate whether to change its opposition to NATO—and not before time. The First Minister has already flip-flopped on his positions on the pound, the Queen, and the Bank of England—all have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. How will he now show leadership and have his party positively embrace the essential role of nuclear weapons in NATO, without flip-flopping on his party’s demands for the rapid removal of a nuclear deterrent from Scotland’s waters?
I noticed that Iraq was absent from the list of international engagements that Ruth Davidson mentioned. Unlike the Conservative Party, the Scottish National Party has tended to take a stance based on what is passed and validated by the United Nations. That means that if we support international engagements, it is because they are based on the rule of law; we do not support illegality and adventures such as Iraq, which cost thousands of lives among our soldiers and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives in Iraq. The Conservative Party wants to slide over the argument about the rule of international law, but it will not be allowed to do so.
I repeat to Ruth Davidson that three of the 28 members of NATO possess nuclear weapons, which means that 25 of the 28 do not. Some 190 countries in the world are non-nuclear-weapon countries. I want Scotland to be one of the 190 countries that do not possess nuclear weapons, as opposed to being one of the few that do.
On 7 December 2010, the Canadian House of Commons unanimously supported a motion to increase the rate of nuclear disarmament. Canada is a loyal member of NATO, as are our neighbours in Norway. Both countries have stated their fundamental opposition to nuclear weapons. That is a belief that the Scottish National Party shares and that is why we look forward to the day when we can evict nuclear weapons from Scottish soil.
There is a brief supplementary question from Claudia Beamish.
In view of the planning permission for fracking near Canonbie in Dumfriesshire, in my region, will the First Minister say what is the Scottish Government’s position on fracking? In the context of the report, “Preese Hall Shale Gas Fracturing: Review & Recommendations for Induced Seismic Mitigation”, which was published earlier this week, does the Scottish Government have concerns about the environmental implications of the fracking process and about the potential impact on our climate change targets?
A number of concerns about fracking have been expressed, internationally and south of the border. The Scottish Government is well aware of the on-going research into the process. Many aspects of the recovery of difficult-to-recover hydrocarbons need to be examined very thoroughly in terms of environmental implications. When, and if, it comes to a planning decision by the Scottish Government, the member can be assured that environmental indications and evidence will be taken fully into account.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00598)
At the next meeting of the Cabinet, we will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
On Tuesday, the report into the failings of NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s freedom of information regime was published. The report relates to the circumstances around the critical incident reports that were produced after the deaths of 20 patients. The reports were hidden and ignored and, as a result, lessons were not learned. This week’s report is very critical of NHS Ayrshire and Arran. It is clear that that board was institutionally secretive, but I suspect that it is not alone. How much has the First Minister learned about the other 13 health boards and their practices in the six weeks since I first asked about the issue?
First, I declare an interest, as I did when I was asked about the matter previously, in that Rab Wilson, the complainant, is known to me; he is a friend of mine. I want that on the record.
As Willie Rennie should know, the allegations of criminal conduct are a matter for the police to investigate, and ministers cannot comment on criminal allegations. As soon as the news broke of the Scottish Information Commissioner’s concerns, NHS Ayrshire and Arran was instructed to carry out an urgent review of its FOI procedures and to report back to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy. The outcome of that review was received in March. NHS Ayrshire and Arran is implementing the actions that were identified in the report and its chief executive will report on progress by the end of May.
In addition, the health secretary has commissioned a review of the relevant clinical governance arrangements for NHS Ayrshire and Arran, which is being carried out by Healthcare Improvement Scotland. The findings of that review and any wider learning for all health boards will be provided to the cabinet secretary by early next month.
It is four years since the problem began and it is a year since the Scottish Information Commissioner became involved. I hear what the First Minister says, but it is four months since the health secretary was officially told of what happened and now a report has been published that heavily criticises the board. Despite that, no formal Scotland-wide inquiry has been launched on health boards’ freedom of information arrangements. NHS Ayrshire and Arran might not be alone—other health boards might be falling short, too. The First Minister needs to act on a Scotland-wide basis. I do not blame him for the failings of NHS Ayrshire and Arran—no one would—but the problem is that, if he fails to act and to hold a Scotland-wide inquiry into the freedom of information arrangements of every health board, he might get the blame. Today, six weeks after I first asked the question, will he agree to hold such an inquiry?
I am sure that Willie Rennie would be the last person to attempt to attribute blame to ministers in such circumstances.
I pointed out in my first answer that the review of NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s clinical governance arrangements is being carried out by Healthcare Improvement Scotland. The objective is that the findings of that review and any wider lessons for all health boards will be provided to the cabinet secretary by early next month. In my view, given when the information came to light, that represents pretty effective action.
We expect our health boards to act properly under the terms of the freedom of information legislation. The reviews that are taking place will ensure that that happens in Ayrshire and Arran, and the lessons will be applied across Scotland. That seems to me to be pretty reasonable and comprehensive action by ministers.
Council Tax (Abolition)
4. To ask the First Minister what representations the Scottish Government has received from charities and other organisations regarding the United Kingdom Government’s planned abolition of council tax benefit. (S4F-00610)
Many organisations have expressed profound concern about the impact of the UK Government’s intention to abolish council tax benefit from 2014. They include the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Age UK—more than half the recipients of council tax benefit are pensioners—the Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice UK and, of course, the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The UK Government’s 10 per cent cut in future support would potentially have increased the liability of around 558,000 people in Scotland, including pensioners, carers, the unemployed, those on tax credit and people who cannot work because of disability.
Earlier, in response to Johann Lamont, I announced that, working in conjunction with COSLA, we have acted as swiftly as possible to ensure that that cut will not take place. It is right and proper that, when we can do so, we respond to protect the most vulnerable people in Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for his response and, unlike some, I welcome his announcement that, in partnership with COSLA, the Scottish Government will protect more than half a million vulnerable Scots from the UK Government’s cuts to council tax benefit.
Does the First Minister agree that, given the Con-Dem Government’s cuts to that benefit and the Labour Party’s repeated flip-flops on the council tax freeze, the only party that can be trusted to protect society’s most vulnerable people and those who are most in need by truly being with them in tough times is the Scottish National Party?
I would not have time in a single answer to discuss the Labour Party’s changing positions on the council tax freeze. First they were against it, then they were for it—they were for it for two years—then they were against it again, and now the answer depends on which area of the country you are in. Apparently, in Glasgow, Labour are now for it after being against it, but in Stirling they want to cut the council tax by voting with the Tories for a princely 22p tax rate for the council tax payers of Stirling. I think that folk in Scotland know, as they approach the local elections, that a vote for the Labour Party means higher council tax and higher bills for families in Scotland, and that the SNP will have none of it.
Will the First Minister confirm the details of the council tax benefit deal? Is it true that local authorities that have disproportionate numbers of people who rely on council tax benefit will have to shoulder the burden of £17 million of cuts in a year in which they have had to shoulder 89 per cent of the Scottish Government’s own budget cuts? Surely that is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I have heard that daft statistic a number of times from Labour in this campaign. The funding for local government in Scotland is higher now as a percentage of our budget than it was when we took office. If we exclude the health service, which I think the Labour Party would protect now—Sarah Boyack is sitting beside Jackie Baillie, who can confirm that—then the percentage is dramatically higher as a share of the non-health service budget in Scotland. The SNP has played fair with local authorities across the country, unlike the Labour Party when it was in power.
Can I just point out to Sarah Boyack that the announcement of the agreement was made jointly with the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in Scotland? Does she really believe that Pat Watters, a Labour Party councillor and president of COSLA, would have signed up to an agreement if he did not think that it was in the interests of people in Scotland? Cannot the Labour Party, when 500,000 people and more in Scotland—the poorest people in our communities—are facing cuts in their council tax benefit, welcome the joint action of local authorities and the Government of Scotland to protect our families? [Interruption.]
Mr Henry, I would appreciate it if you would stop shouting across the chamber.
Women Offenders
5. To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to deal with an increase in the number of female offenders, in the light of the recent report by the commission on women offenders. (S4F-00614)
I put on record the Scottish Government’s gratitude and—I hope—that of the whole chamber for the fantastic work that Dame Elish Angiolini and the other members of the commission have done in offering ideas on more effective ways of dealing with women in the criminal justice system of Scotland. The commission has made several key recommendations, which the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will consider in full before reporting back with a detailed response in the summer.
I am sure that Jenny Marra would acknowledge that the Government has already introduced a robust system of community-based sentences that will in many cases be far more appropriate for women than prison. We have also funded specific projects for women in the past two years to the tune of £1.6 million, as well as providing £8.5 million for the 218 centre in Glasgow over the past five years. I am sure that Jenny Marra will want to play a full part in the debates in the Parliament as we take forward many of the suggestions in the Angiolini report.
I thank the First Minister for his answer and his support for the excellent report.
The number of female prisoners in this country has doubled over the past 10 years and 70 per cent of female prisoners go on to offend again. As the First Minister mentioned, community justice centres—formerly known as time-out centres, which were established by Labour—significantly reduce reoffending by tackling the debilitating cycle of addiction and depression. Will the First Minister commit to expanding those centres throughout the country?
We will look very carefully at all the suggestions. I am told that 26 April is the date for the debate in the Parliament. I know that good ideas will come forward from all sides.
Jenny Marra is right to point out that the female prison population has increased since 1999 from 210 to 444 in April 2012. There are still far fewer women in prison as a percentage of the population than men, of course, but it is, nonetheless, a worrying trend. However, as the Angiolini report suggests, there are measures that can be considered to reverse that trend and, indeed, to find far more suitable forms of punishment and addressing re-offending behaviour than prison incarceration.
The commission’s report stands. I know that many members will have read it, because it is on a subject that is very close to the hearts of many MSPs. I am sure that when the debate takes place, it will be conducted in the best traditions of this chamber so that ideas that come forward from all sides of the chamber can be properly considered and, I hope, taken forward into better action in our judicial and prison system.
I commend the Cabinet Secretary for Justice for taking the issue seriously by initiating the commission in the first place.
The First Minister will no doubt be aware that a high proportion of women offenders suffer from mental illness. Can the First Minister give me some indication of the action that has already been taken to address that issue? Can he further reassure me that the women will be given the highest standard of medical care?
Yes, I can. Details of the actions that have already been taken and suggestions on how things can be taken further are, of course, in the Angiolini report.
The report makes 37 far-reaching—in some cases radical—recommendations. I commend the report to all members. I look forward to the debate on it so that we can progress some of the good—or great—ideas in the report and act on them to try to build something of which this Parliament and Scotland can be rightfully proud.
NHS Ayrshire and Arran (Allegations)
6. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with NHS Ayrshire and Arran about allegations of criminal deception by members of its staff. (S4F-00606)
John Scott will have heard the answer that I gave to Willie Rennie. I repeat that the allegations of criminal behaviour are for the police to investigate. I know that he will understand that I, as First Minister, cannot comment directly on the course of a police investigation.
I will not detail the other actions, because I want to hear what John Scott’s follow-up question is. I will come back to those actions and explain their relevance, depending on his question.
The First Minister will be aware of the growing concern among my constituents—particularly those whose family members died while in the care of NHS Ayrshire and Arran—about the debacle. This week, my constituent Mr Keenan contacted me to try to find out whether his 17-year-old daughter Carly, who died of a brain haemorrhage while in the care of NHS Ayrshire and Arran, is among the 20 or so people about whom critical incident reports were, or should have been, prepared. Of equal concern is the question that must now be asked: did Carly die, and have other patients died, because critical incident reports were not prepared and disseminated timeously in the past and lessons not learned from previous mistakes?
Will the First Minister assure me that, in addition to the serious allegations of criminal deception that the police are now considering, the various inquiries will consider potential consequential deaths?
The criminal allegations are matters for the police.
I talked about the review of clinical governance arrangements. I assure John Scott that it will address directly the general concern that he has expressed. The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy would be delighted to meet him to discuss any specific constituency case and concern. As he knows, there have already been a number of direct meetings with MSPs and with Rab Wilson.
I reassure John Scott that the clinical governance arrangements review has been commissioned to address exactly the general point that he made.
12:33
Meeting suspended.
14:15
On resuming—