First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01559)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Excellent. Writing in The Guardian, the First Minister’s former head of policy, Alex Bell, the man charged with writing the white paper on independence until as recently as July this year, says of the nationalist movement that Alex Salmond leads:
“At its worst, it succumbs to the temptation to focus on old songs and tired policies. In this, Salmond is wrong.”
Mr Bell goes on to suggest that he had difficulty in writing the Government’s white paper on independence because the First Minister’s arguments are false. He says of the task of writing it:
“Had the superficial elements of the independence argument been true, this would have been easy.”
Is the First Minister’s former head of policy right? If not, why not?
I will have to update Johann Lamont. I saw Alex Bell on “Newsnight Scotland” last night, and he was saying what a wonderful person I am. I was most gratified.
I agreed with a huge amount that was in the article in The Guardian. I thought that Alex Bell represented his arguments properly when he said:
“For many of us the nationalist case represents what the UK Labour party could be, if it had a spine”.
He was being a bit aggressive towards the Labour Party, but I think that the Scottish population would basically regard the Labour Party—both in the United Kingdom and in Scotland—as a shiver looking for a spine to run up.
That was stunning. The dispute is not whether the First Minister is a wonderful person; it is whether he is right or wrong. For a supporter of independence to attack the Labour Party is perhaps expected, but it is a serious matter to hear Alex Bell—the man whom the First Minster chose to write the blueprint for an independent Scotland—express those views.
The future of Scotland is supposed to hang on the First Minister’s long-awaited white paper. We deserve to know why the man who was writing it left the Government. Here is a clue. Mr Bell writes:
“Salmond has denied a crucial truth about the debate: Scotland’s problems are common to the developed world”.
If the First Minister cannot persuade those whom he hired to advise him of his case for independence, what chance does he have with the rest of us?
I point out to Johann Lamont that in last night’s interview Alex Bell confirmed a range of things, including that he is a keen supporter of an independent Scotland. [Interruption.]
Order.
That is the decision that each and every one of us in Scotland is going to be asked to make.
Johann Lamont’s idea that everybody in the same political party should be in agreement is a fantastic one. I have been looking at some of the things that have been said about the Labour Party. In the Sunday Herald of 30 June 2013, we read:
“Labour’s finance spokesman Ken Macintosh was dropped in Johann Lamont’s reshuffle because he dared to criticise her infamous speech about Scotland’s ‘something for nothing’ culture”.
Alex Bell last night made it absolutely clear that he will vote yes in the referendum. We do not know whether Ken Macintosh has succeeded in knocking Johann Lamont off her something-for-nothing culture.
Only in the First Minister’s world does somebody saying that Alex Salmond is wrong mean that Alex Salmond is right. Alex Bell may support independence, but he agrees with me that we should address the long-term problems such as pensions and an ageing population. However, he lost that argument with a First Minister who always and ever puts his own interests ahead of the interests of the people of Scotland.
If Alex Bell were a one-off, we could understand it, but the First Minister has form. What did his Nobel laureate adviser Professor Joseph Stiglitz say of his corporation tax plans? He said:
“Some of you have been told that lowering tax rates on corporations will lead to more investment. That fact is not true.”
What about Alex Salmond’s former economic adviser Professor John Kay? He described the First Minister’s claims as “cloud cuckoo land”.
Does the First Minister ever reflect—[Interruption.] Well, we know that no one on the back benches will ever say the words, “Alex Salmond is wrong,” so someone else has to say it for them. Does the First Minister ever reflect that perhaps it is not his advisers who are wrong but he who is wrong?
The evidence is that, if someone in Johann Lamont’s shadow cabinet says that she is wrong, they end up in the back benches. [Interruption.]
Order.
In some cases, they return to the very back benches.
I commend to Johann Lamont the transcript of what Alex Bell had to say on “Newsnight Scotland” last night. I will not read that out because it is too glowing in its praise.
Members: Aw!
Oh well—
Just give us a flavour, First Minister.
Alex Bell said:
“It has been an immense privilege to work for the Government of Scotland. We have done some fantastic things. Alex Salmond has won a series of elections ... There was no fallout. We are much closer than we were when we first worked. There is a lot of compassion there. But I just felt, if it wasn’t going to be the argument that I would make, that I should step aside.”
In terms of people gracefully stepping aside from Government, Alex Bell is a paragon of virtue. What he said should not be used by Johann Lamont to suggest that he is anything other than a keen supporter of the yes campaign on Scottish independence.
Presumably, when the rest of Scotland is now disagreeing with Alex Salmond, it gives him some comfort to read out nice words about himself. However, perhaps he should take things a little more seriously and reflect on what Alex Bell has actually said. People across Scotland are finding the First Minister increasingly deluded and unconvincing. No wonder the First Minister’s old deputy, Jim Sillars, has said of the Scottish National Party:
“Totalitarian would be a fair description of Scotland’s majority party.” [Interruption.]
And totalitarianism does involve shouting people down.
On a host of issues that are important to the public, which will need to be answered in coming debates on independence, the evidence is that no serious work has been done. Those willing to be told to shut up seem happy to follow whatever line is laid down for them.
Today, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the First Minister has a £5.9 billion black hole in his finances—something that he ignored when John Swinney pointed it out to him in private months ago. Is it not true that the people of Scotland do not believe what he says about independence and that even his own side do not believe him any more?
First, a correction regarding the Institute for Fiscal Studies report is that the IFS ran a range of scenarios. I suggest that Johann Lamont looks at page 8, where it says:
“However, if North Sea revenues turn out to be substantially stronger than the OBR forecasts, the fiscal situation in Scotland might actually be somewhat stronger than that for the UK as a whole for the first few years of independence.”
One thing to say about the scenarios that show a stronger fiscal position is that the oil price figures are taken from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, so those were London-based forecasts as well. I thought that David Phillips, who is the senior economist at the IFS, was pretty fair-minded on the radio this morning. Johann Lamont should quote the report properly and in the full context.
On the question of trust, which was Johann Lamont’s key question, we now have considerable evidence from this very morning from the YouGov poll on what people say about independence. Now, no politician emerges dramatically as being incredibly trustworthy, but that is perhaps not surprising—I top the poll, but nonetheless no politician emerges unambiguously. What is really interesting about Johann Lamont’s figures is that—according to this YouGov poll, which the no campaign has been citing—her total trust figure on the constitutional question is 16 per cent. That is for the Opposition leader in Scotland. Of course, that might be because, according to the poll, a majority intend to vote for the Scottish National Party, but let us look at what Labour Party voters—her own supporters—say. One question asked whether Labour supporters trust Johann Lamont on the constitutional question. A majority of Labour supporters—44 per cent—do not trust the Labour leader on what she has to do on independence.
If we are in a situation—as that poll indicates—in which even Labour supporters in Scotland do not trust the Labour leader, it is hardly surprising that those of us who are arguing for a positive future in Scotland look forward optimistically to the campaign over the next year.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01554)
No plans in the near future.
I will take us back to the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which the First Minister says we should quote properly and in the full context. Yes, the IFS did say on page 8 of the report the words that the First Minister read out, but the very next line stated:
“But doing this might be ill advised.”
Let us quote the IFS properly and in the full context. That does not get us away—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Ruth Davidson, please.
It does not get us away from the central projection, which is that an independent Scotland would start life with a £5.9 billion black hole in its finances over the first few years.
To continue the theme, I ask the First Minister: is the IFS wrong?
I am not going to let Ruth Davidson away with that—unfortunately for her—because I have the full quotation here. It says:
“In this case, an independent Scotland would, in principle, be able to cut spending or increase taxes by less than if it remained part of the UK.”
The report goes on to say that that “might be ill-advised” because it might be better to borrow less or to save more. Only in the topsy-turvy world of the Conservative Party could a fiscal advantage, in that scenario, be presented as a weakness.
It wasnae a great start for Ruth Davidson, in quoting the IFS, to stop before she put her remarks in context. When she asks her second question, will she confirm that what I have said about the quote on page 8—
Ruth Davidson rose—
Read out the full quote: the bit where it says that it might be wiser to take that “stronger fiscal position” and, instead of spending more or cutting less than we will be able to do if we stay in the UK, to invest for the future or to borrow less.
Read out the full quote, and then we will answer the second question.
In answering the question, the First Minister once again chooses to pick one scenario and ignore—[Interruption.]
Order.
And ignore the IFS’s central projection, which is a £5.9 billion black hole in the finances.
It is not just the IFS report with which the First Minister wants to show us a shiny thing in the corner and lead us away. This week, we have heard from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, following on from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, named experts such as Professor Brian Quinn and Professor John Kay, the British Insurance Brokers Association and the David Hume Institute.
All those organisations are raising questions about the First Minister’s economic case for independence. All are experts in their field, and none has an axe to grind, but they have been dismissed, disparaged or ignored by the First Minister. They should not feel special because, as we have just heard, he does that to his closest adviser, Alex Bell.
The First Minister may stand here today and say, “I’m a wonderful person”, but a really unpleasant picture is building up of a bunker mentality and a man who refuses to be challenged, to take advice or to engage at all. How can it be that all those experts just do not get it, while the First Minister alone is always right?
I think that everyone knows why Ruth Davidson did not want to read out the rest of the quote. Listing all those things that I am meant to do to experts was, given that Ruth Davidson started by not giving the full quote from—and perhaps misquoting—one of the reports, rather an unfortunate way for her to make her case.
I thought that the report summary from David Phillips this morning was very fair-minded; he says, of course, that the IFS drew on the OBR’s projections. We have discussed before what is wrong with the OBR projections. They forecast an oil price that is lower than everybody else and substantially lower than that forecast by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which gives us the alternative figures.
We can forecast as much as we like, but we know what has actually happened over the past few years. We know that, between 1980 and 2011, Scotland ran an average net fiscal surplus of equivalent to 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product while the UK ran a deficit of 3 per cent. We also know that, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, since 2000 Scotland’s public finances have been estimated to be somewhat stronger than those of the UK.
Those are things that have actually happened. In that entire period of history, the Conservative Party was never once prepared to acknowledge that, year after year, Scotland was in relative surplus with the rest of the United Kingdom—that we could have invested more, borrowed less or saved more according to the fiscal position—so why on earth should we now accept from the Conservative Party forecasts about the future?
I will make two final points. First, I would not rely too much on the OBR. It is forecasting that the UK will be in fiscal deficit for the next 50 years—if Ruth Davidson wants to accept its forecasts.
Secondly, as far as people showing loyalty is concerned, I refer to the remarks in The Scotsman of 23 May from Murdo Fraser, who said that the Scottish Tory party
“in its current manifestation is”
not
“the best vehicle”
for its supporters,
“trapped in a vicious cycle of declining electoral support”.
That is a Tory MSP. If you are not even prepared to read out a quotation that you introduced, it is hardly surprising.
We have a constituency question from Kenneth Gibson.
The First Minister will be aware that the Z Hinchcliffe & Sons Ltd factory in Dalry in my constituency is set to close. Z Hinchcliffe was founded in 1776 and produces quality yarn, which is sought after by some of the most prestigious fashion houses in the world. Sadly, the company feels that it now has too much capacity for its market.
Although a few employees will be offered a transfer to Denby Dale near Huddersfield, the Dalry closure will lead to the loss of up to 115 jobs. Will the First Minister ensure that the Scottish Government works with the directors of Z Hinchcliffe & Sons to offer any assistance that it can to mitigate potential job losses and assist those employees whose jobs are under threat?
I share the member’s concern at the developments in respect of Z Hinchcliffe & Sons and the impact that they will have on the employees affected, their families and the surrounding area of North Ayrshire.
I confirm that we received notification of the redundancies yesterday and took immediate action through the partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—team initiative. We contacted the company to offer support for any individuals facing redundancy.
I also confirm that our agencies will seek to meet the company to discuss what assistance we can provide to support it and, we hope, to prevent some or all of the redundancies.
We will do our absolute best, and I hope that that provides reassurance to the member that we will do everything that we can to support the company and employees.
Royal Mail (Privatisation)
3. To ask the First Minister what the economic impact will be on Scotland of the privatisation of the Royal Mail. (S4F-01561)
I think the economic impacts—[Interruption.] I hear “none” from the Conservative or Liberal members. They are deeply out of touch with the feelings of people, particularly those of people in rural Scotland, because the economic impacts of the privatisation are potentially grave. A privatised service will be more concerned with increasing profits than delivering services and could damage Scotland, where the Royal Mail is the lifeblood of rural communities.
Royal Mail is a shared asset that belongs to Scotland as much as to the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I have written to the Prime Minister asking him to place a moratorium on the sale of the Royal Mail until after next year’s referendum. No one should be able to prejudge the decision of the people of Scotland on who should be given the opportunity to decide what we should do with a huge and important national asset.
Royal Mail has been under threat from consecutive Westminster Governments. Will the First Minister confirm that, after the yes vote in 2014, he will ensure that Royal Mail remains part of an independent Scotland?
Dennis Robertson is absolutely correct. I think that the defence of Peter Mandelson and Alistair Darling was that they were planning only a part privatisation of Royal Mail, as opposed to a full privatisation—they were half Tories as opposed to full Tories. [Interruption.]
Mr Findlay.
I think that this issue goes to the nub of why Scotland needs independence. An overwhelming majority of Scotland’s MPs at Westminster opposed the sell-off of Royal Mail, but we are still faced with privatisation. That illustrates perfectly why important decisions about the future of our country, such as a decision on our cherished postal service, should be taken by the people who care most about Scotland—that is, people who choose to work and live here. That is why we should make every possible endeavour to keep our Royal Mail in public hands, and that is what we will do in an independent Scotland.
In the event that the Tory Government does indeed—regrettably—privatise Royal Mail, and in the event of a yes vote in the referendum, will it be the SNP’s policy to renationalise Royal Mail?
First, we will get a moratorium on the process. Secondly, we will try to stop it, and we will seek to bring Royal Mail back into public hands.
That answer is in sharp contrast to anything that we have heard from the Labour Party at UK level, not to mention the extraordinary extrapolations and muddle over the bedroom tax, so perhaps the member for North East Scotland will take a lesson in bringing forward into policy what he says that he believes in in terms of his politics.
It is a sad day when the First Minister cannot even give clear answers to questions from his own back benchers.
For the third time, is the First Minister giving a clear commitment to renationalise—I emphasise the word “renationalise”—Royal Mail?
For the third time, an independent Scottish Government that I lead—that will be a decision of the Scottish people—will bring Royal Mail, our postal service, back into public ownership. [Interruption.]
Order.
Bedroom Tax
4. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will spend the £20 million that it announced on 11 September 2013 to help people affected by the so-called bedroom tax. (S4F-01572)
The Government will provide local authorities with up to £20 million to enable them to increase their discretionary housing payment budget. That brings the total budget that is available this year for discretionary housing payments to £35.3 million, which is the maximum that is allowed under the powers of this Parliament. The additional money from the Scottish Government will be distributed to local authorities, and the exact amounts for each authority will be agreed with our partners in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We know that that will give councils the ability to help many thousands of households that have been hit by the tax.
I thank the First Minister for indicating his clear position on the bedroom tax, certainly for next year.
What further discussions or communications has the Scottish Government had with COSLA to ensure that the £20 million will be utilised as timeously as possible to help those who have been affected by the parties in the no campaign’s bedroom tax? Has the First Minister had any discussions with Johann Lamont regarding her position on the bedroom tax?
We will work very closely with COSLA to ensure that the money is used as quickly and effectively as possible.
I am not sure that speaking to Johann Lamont about her position on the bedroom tax would get much information, given that two weeks ago, when her deputy said that the Labour Party would abolish it tomorrow, she refused to answer on the other television station. Then we had the remarkable incident at the weekend, when Jackie Baillie said that Labour was about to announce plans to abolish the bedroom tax, only for the Labour Party in London to say:
“It goes against what we are saying”.
So, maybe it is a case of Jackie Baillie says aye, Labour says naw and Johann Lamont says mebbes aye, mebbes naw.
I call Jackie Baillie. [Interruption.]
Thank you.
Order. Let us hear Ms Baillie.
I know that the First Minister is fond of pointing a finger at others as a diversion rather than addressing the powers that the Scottish Government has now, but let us try again. He will be aware that £20 million represents less than half of what is required and that no budget is set aside for next year. Does he agree with his Deputy First Minister—she is whispering in his ear—who has refused to support a bill to protect people from evictions, because she says that it is unnecessary? Is he confident that no cases are in our courts this week to commence the process of eviction because of bedroom tax arrears?
The money that we are providing is the maximum that we can provide under the law as it stands. The only cases of which I have heard of a council trying to evict people because of the bedroom tax have been in North Lanarkshire, which has a Labour Party administration.
Jackie Baillie gave an extraordinary performance at the weekend, only to be contradicted by the United Kingdom Labour Party. She has unremitted gall in coming to the chamber to ask questions, given the Labour Party’s pyrotechnics in the past few days.
I hope that we can expect a clear commitment from the Labour Party to abolish the bedroom tax and that we can have a clear commitment from it against evictions, like SNP councils six months ago and like the SNP on repealing the bedroom tax, which is—as we have pointed out—one of the great arguments for having an independent Scotland.
Policing
5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government considers the impact will be on local policing of reported plans to replace local police officers with officers from other divisions on public holidays to avoid double-time payments. (S4F-01563)
Redeploying police officers according to operational need is not a new development across Scotland. For example, the former Strathclyde Police regularly redeployed officers from outlying areas to the city centre when that was needed.
No negative impact is expected as a result of the redeployment. The operational baseline in divisions will be maintained, and only officers who are above that baseline would be deployed to other areas to supplement local officers when necessary. That will ensure that we continue to provide visible policing in our communities, while delivering a more effective and efficient police service across Scotland.
After discussions with a divisional commander, a local council leader said that they were dealing with
“these very difficult cuts”.
The Scottish Police Federation has expressed concern that no discussions led up to the development. The chief constable said in the Aberdeen Evening Express that he had insufficient budget to maintain police numbers. The City of Edinburgh Council’s Labour-SNP administration has decided to review its current commitment to pay for additional local police officers to patrol its city; I have no doubt that other local authorities will follow that.
Given that, will the First Minister consider whether the cornerstone of policing success in Scotland since 1800—the maintenance of the policing of local communities by local police officers—
We need a question, Mr Pearson.
—is being abandoned as a result of the Government’s actions, despite repeated assurances that the national police service would deliver community policing across Scotland’s communities?
Graeme Pearson is being very unfair to Assistant Chief Constable Mike McCormick, who pointed out in The Courier that,
“As an employer, Police Scotland is also committed to safeguarding the welfare of its officers and staff. Utilising our resources from across the country to support operational requirements ensures locally-based personnel are not required to work longer hours and allows them the opportunity to be released from duty on local public holidays wherever possible.”
There is a strong argument in what the assistant chief constable said.
On police officer numbers, it is fair to assume from Labour’s positioning that we have at least 1,000 more police officers on the streets and in the communities of Scotland than we would have had if Labour had been in power, since it has not once been prepared to support that policy.
As for police officers’ terms and conditions, any Police Federation representative will tell members that decisions that the Government has made to protect officers against the changes that are taking place in England and Wales not just in police numbers but in police terms and conditions have placed this country and our communities in a hugely superior position to that of those south of the border. Graeme Pearson well knows that any serving officer will confirm that position.
Fishing Quotas (Register)
6. To ask the First Minister when a publicly accessible register of fishing quota allocation holdings and transactions will be established. (S4F-01567)
Scotland’s fish quotas are an important national asset. The Government wants to see quotas in the hands of the active fishing industry and supporting its success, and not held as a speculative asset. We are currently working to establish a publicly accessible register of quota holdings, which will be launched later this year. The register will bring much-needed transparency to the quota system.
I thank the First Minister for that answer, which I shall take first thing tomorrow morning to Peterhead fish market.
Does the First Minister agree that successive Westminster Governments have failed to protect the interests of Scotland’s fishing industry and that independence offers a far better deal for fishing communities in the north-east and across Scotland?
With independence, Scotland will have a direct say in fisheries negotiations and will at last be in a position to negotiate the best deal for our fishermen, rather than Scottish fisheries interests being treated in the way that they have been treated over the past quarter of a century and more.
I am not sure that members know of the release under the 30-year rule of the infamous civil service memo about the Heath Government’s negotiations to enter the Common Market, all those years ago, that pointed out that, in terms of Britain’s wider European interests, they—the Scottish fishermen—“are expendable”. That was written by a civil servant. If we look at the lack of priority that was given to the fishing industry by Westminster in European negotiations over those years, we will see that there is absolutely no doubt that Tory and Labour Governments regarded fishing as expendable. In an independent Scotland, it will be one of the great natural resource industries of Scotland and will be defended properly.