First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01477)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Excellent. In private, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, in a paper to Cabinet—we remember that rigorous piece of work—questioned the affordability of the state pension in a separate Scotland. This week, in public, John Swinney promised not only a state pension, but one guaranteed to go up by at least 2.5 per cent a year—[Interruption.]
Order.
It is easy to say that, but he said nothing about the age of retirement. How did John Swinney get from questioning the affordability of pensions to that new policy? What is the cost of that policy? How will the costs be met?
I point out—and this is a key matter for the Government—that welfare spending in Scotland is less as a proportion of our national economy than it is for the United Kingdom. That should tell Johann Lamont that the welfare budget in Scotland is more affordable than some people regard it as being across the UK.
Given the Labour Party’s wholesale desertion in recent weeks of the cause of universal benefits and welfare policy and the shadow chancellor’s acceptance of the Tory plans, this is the last subject on which Johann Lamont should be commenting.
The triple-lock guarantee, which John Swinney has put forward for an independent Scotland, is an excellent idea that gives reassurance. Its whole basis is that it is exactly that—a guarantee that pensioners will get the best deal possible, which is what the Scottish National Party is committed to.
If the First Minister wants to be credible, he could at least make an effort and answer the question. He says that this is the last question that I should be asking, but it is the first question that many pensioners and others across the country are asking.
I remember that, when I was studying my O grade maths, I had to do the sums and show the workings before I reached the answer. This week, John Swinney simply ditched what he had said before and gave an answer with no credible workings at all. Whatever the real cost of the Government’s pension policy, we know that it has cost the credibility not only of John Swinney, but of the Government.
We live in the real world. In private, the Cabinet doubts the affordability of the state pension. If its public words are to have any credibility, surely it must be able to tell us—today—how it can be afforded. I ask again: how did the Government move from questioning the affordability of the state pension to the new policy of guaranteed rises for all, and what will that cost?
Perhaps this time, Johann Lamont will appreciate the significance of the information that the Government has published, demonstrating that the welfare budget as a proportion of Scotland’s national wealth is less than the welfare budget as a proportion of the UK’s national wealth. That makes welfare more affordable in Scotland. Given that the triple-lock guarantee is current policy—until the Labour Party revises that, too—then of course we can put that forward for the security of old-age pensioners in Scotland.
Johann Lamont says that this is the first question that pensioners are asking, but the first question that pensioners are asking in Scotland is whether their bus pass will be safe should the Labour Party return to power. They are asking about free personal care. That is because Johann Lamont, like Ed Balls, is not only unable to commit to the current welfare budget, accepting the plans of the Tories, but is challenging the basic fabric of the achievements of devolution and the great gains for pensioners across Scotland.
On the bus pass, it helps to have a bus to go with it.
There are people across the country who believe that next year we will have a serious debate about the future of Scotland. From that showing, the First Minister is incapable of convincing anyone that has he has even remotely thought about the things that really matter to families across the country.
We know why the First Minister can be so relaxed about pensions. By my reckoning, he has five, and they are all backed by the UK Government. He has his civil service pension, his MP’s pension, his MSP’s pension, his First Minister’s pension, and we should not forget—[Interruption.]
Order.
I am very grateful for my pension, but we should not forget that the First Minister presumably has his Royal Bank of Scotland pension. He should thank Gordon Brown for saving that one.
We know that the First Minister will be all right, but he is prepared to put everyone else at risk. If pensioners now and in future are to believe that the Scottish National Party is suddenly so certain that the state pension is affordable, will the First Minister tell us now how much money he will have to raise to fund it and where it will come from? Show us the workings and not just the answer.
First, for pensioners watching this broadcast, the mention of Gordon Brown, whose raid on pensions destroyed the pensions of people across this country, indicates the insensitivity of the Labour Party.
Let me try this again for Johann Lamont. It is now accepted, because of the workings that the Scottish Government has produced, that the welfare budget as a share of Scotland’s national wealth is less and therefore more affordable than welfare’s share of the budget across the UK. Therefore, if the triple lock is affordable in the UK, it is more affordable in Scotland. The triple lock is an essential part of society’s contract with pensioners, but there are other essential parts of that as well. I take it from Johann Lamont’s question that the bus pass is in danger from the Labour Party, so let us hear loud and clear what the Labour Party said when it set up the cuts commission:
“There is nothing off the table.”
People should hear that loud and clear—it is not just the bus pass, free personal care and tuition fees but the whole social contract of devolution that is now under threat from the party that once cared about working people. It is no longer about working people or pensioners or anyone, but is hot foot in pursuit of its alliance with the Tory party.
Well, my goodness. We have asked a simple question. The First Minister says that this is evident, so share with us what it will cost. I think that any pensioner or any family worried about their children’s future who looks at today’s broadcast—as he calls it—will wonder how it is possible for a First Minister to offer a future that is no more than a leap in the dark on the fundamental issues that they face.
It is no wonder that not even his SNP candidate in Aberdeen Donside believes that there is a chance of the First Minister winning the referendum. Not even his own economic advisers find the First Minister credible. His Nobel laureate Joe Stiglitz says that he is wrong on corporation tax. Only last night, Professor John Kay laid out why the First Minister has his policy on the currency wrong. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland says that there is a £170 billion hole in the First Minister’s plans for private pensions. The First Minister simply cannot tell us how he will afford the state pension. It is an absolute failure of office to be unable to answer those most basic questions.
The reality is that the First Minister has no credibility—[Interruption.] I am glad that members have something to laugh about because, for the rest of us, this is far from funny—[Interruption.].
Order.
If politics was about slogans and shouting, the First Minister would do fine. [Interruption.]
Order.
The fact of the matter is—[Interruption.]
Order.
The fact of the matter is that on something as fundamental as the future of this country, the First Minister has no credibility, no detail and no facts. Is not the truth that the only way to protect people’s pensions is to pension off Alex Salmond next September?
Dear oh dear. I guess that Johann Lamont did not hear what was said properly. On her claim to have done O level maths, somebody merely suggested that it should have been higher maths—that was all.
I will try this again. In Scotland, the amount that is spent on welfare is less of a percentage of the total wealth of Scotland—the total product of Scotland—than the percentage of the total wealth of the UK that is spent on welfare. Is that correct, thus far? Yes, that is correct and accepted. Therefore, the affordability of that welfare budget—[Interruption.]
Order, please, Mr Johnstone.
Therefore, that welfare budget, the dominant part of which is pensions, is more affordable in Scotland than it is across the United Kingdom as a whole. That seems to be a reasonable position and I think that most higher grade maths students would probably manage to get to it.
On the pension black holes, I return to Mr Brown. The pension black holes that afflict the UK were created by Gordon Brown in his raid on pensioners. On policies for pensioners, pensioners are looking for guarantees on the bus pass and on free personal care. This party gives those guarantees; with Labour, everything is up for grabs.
As far as Aberdeen Donside is concerned, it is not perhaps the Labour Party’s strongest suit, because today the parents in Middleton Park and Bramble Brae in Aberdeen Donside will be voting to keep their schools open.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01472)
I have no plans to meet him in the near future.
Yesterday, bereaved parents courageously came to the Parliament to look for support for a public inquiry into what happened to the remains of their babies and why. What started as a scandal in a single crematorium in Mortonhall in Edinburgh has spread to crematoria in Glasgow and Aberdeen—and they are the ones that we knew about. We have now learned that a number of families who used a facility in Falkirk have been affected, as have families using a private—not local authority—crematorium.
The Government’s response has been overtaken by events. Does the First Minister recognise that neither the Angiolini investigation nor Lord Bonomy’s review will give the answers that the parents who came to the Parliament yesterday need?
Let us accept that everyone in the Parliament—like people across the country, I suspect—has great sympathy and empathy for the parents in such circumstances.
My mother had a stillborn child, which is a common experience for many families. If we add to that the extremity of not knowing about the disposal of a child’s ashes, every person—every human—will understand how parents feel in such circumstances or at least have the empathy to try to understand how parents feel. That is shared across the entire Parliament. The question is how best to proceed to get parents the answers that they need and of course, importantly, to change the policy that has prevailed—in the past, perhaps, but nonetheless it has prevailed—certainly in Edinburgh and in Glasgow and perhaps in other areas to a significant degree across Scotland.
With the backing of his commission, Lord Bonomy indicated just last week that he is confident that he can make proper recommendations by the end of this year. If that is the case—and he says that it is—that will be a huge step forward. The advantage in that is that we would be able to legislate next year to ensure that such cases never happen again. In contrast, the average length in Scotland of a public inquiry, for example, is three and a half years. Two inquiries that we have sanctioned have not even finished at this stage.
Getting the recommendations by the end of the year would be an asset. If that was not to be the case and that could not happen, I would not hesitate to take other measures, which include considering a public inquiry if Lord Bonomy’s confidence is not to be justified by events.
On Elish Angiolini’s investigations, I have a letter that was sent to Michael Matheson from Elish Angiolini this week. The question was raised whether her inquiries have been hampered in any way by the status of her independent investigation. She says:
“my enquiries have not been hampered by the absence of powers of compulsion. I have not received any indication, to date, that there will be any such issue.”
If Elish Angiolini can get the answers to satisfy—I hope—the vast majority of the Mortonhall parents, the same sort of investigation, as set out by Lord Bonomy in his letter to local authorities last week, could apply to other areas of Scotland. If that is not possible, and if our former Lord Advocate encounters obstacles and cannot get to the truth, I will be the first person—as with the Bonomy commission—to reconsider the issue and decide whether further steps must be taken.
Let us try to answer the anguish of the parents in a way that accepts that every single member in the chamber feels empathy for and understands the parents’ circumstances and plight.
I welcome the First Minister’s empathy, sympathy and understanding. However, he knows that Lord Bonomy’s commission is not looking at individual cases and will not give answers to what happened historically to parents in different parts of the country who are in such a situation. The Angiolini investigation might do so in Edinburgh, but that does not address what is happening elsewhere.
The idea that the Angiolini investigation in Edinburgh could in some way be looked at or replicated in other local authority areas was skewered this week by George Black, Glasgow City Council’s chief executive. He wrote to the head of the Glasgow ashes group to say:
“We believe that in order to find out the truth of what happened in individual cases, it would be better for there to be a nationwide inquiry, rather than a host of individual local inquiries”.
The First Minister has repeatedly sidestepped calls for a public inquiry. Two weeks ago, he told me that the priority was for Lord Bonomy to put the new procedures in place, and three weeks ago, he said that it was right that local authorities should look at the issue individually.
However, the scandal has now spread from one crematorium in one part of Scotland to multiple sites—including private and public crematoria—in at least four local authority areas. The parents, who know how long an inquiry would take, are still calling for an inquiry to find out what happened to their babies’ remains. The head of Scotland’s largest local authority is now saying that the current approach is not enough and that he wants more.
I have repeatedly said that this is not a party-political issue, and it should not be. However, there is no getting away from the fact that the only party that is not supporting the parents’ calls for an inquiry is the Scottish National Party. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
I do not think that the parents out there would particularly like to hear catcalls in the chamber.
The parents do not understand the SNP’s stance and neither do I. The SNP demanded a full public inquiry into the Dunoon ferry. Why, First Minister, is the case of the bereaved parents less deserving?
Let me try again. The four public inquiries that the Government has sanctioned since we took office are the ICL inquiry, the fingerprint inquiry, the Penrose inquiry and the Vale of Leven inquiry. None of those concerns trivial issues, and we are certainly not having a public inquiry into the Dunoon ferry. Thompsons Solicitors, which represents some of the parents, is advocating four additional public inquiries in Scotland: a baby ashes inquiry, a transvaginal mesh inquiry, a legionnaire’s disease inquiry and a PIP implants inquiry.
If, on a major public issue, only a public inquiry could get the answers and give people the justice that they deserve, I would not hesitate to sanction such an inquiry. However, in this instance, we have hope and belief in Lord Bonomy—who, incidentally, wrote this week to the local authorities around Scotland, including George Black at Glasgow City Council, to set out how a local authority can sanction an inquiry and to advise on guidance.
The guidance includes the need to ensure that any investigations are conducted transparently, independently and objectively, and with respect for and sensitivity to the concerns of affected families. If that is possible for the Angiolini inquiry in Edinburgh, why on earth would it not be possible for an inquiry in Glasgow? I do not understand why something can be done in Edinburgh but not in Glasgow.
The Bonomy commission, which will look at cases and is open to submissions, is there to provide the guidance and regulations that we can introduce to stop such a situation happening again. That could be provided by the end of the year. Lord Bonomy is confident that he can report by the end of the year—with the commission that he has and the expertise, including the two charities representing the bereaved in campaigns—to put forward his recommendations. If that can be done, it will be a great advance. If Elish Angiolini can, to parents’ satisfaction, get to the bottom of the individual cases that involve Mortonhall, why on earth can that not be done elsewhere as well?
If Lord Bonomy cannot come up with recommendations that we can endorse as a Parliament to stop the situation happening again and if Elish Angiolini at some stage encounters obstacles in her inquiries into individual cases and cannot command the confidence of a majority of the parents, I will be the first person to say that we will have to go for a public inquiry or some other recourse. However, I fully expect at present that Bonomy will give us the recommendations that we can put into legislation next year to ensure that what happened will not happen again and that Elish Angiolini, as a former Lord Advocate, should command the confidence of everyone when she says that she can conduct her investigation independently in Edinburgh. If that can be done in Edinburgh, it most certainly can be done elsewhere in Scotland.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01478)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Four years ago, I joined families in the little settlement of Kinneddar Park in west Fife who were against proposals to extract coal from the neighbouring fields. We lost, and permission was granted. The residents were assured by developers that the industry had learned lessons from past failures and that, after extraction, the land would be converted into a local environmental resource. Operations have now ceased, leaving a huge hole and spoil heaps dwarfing the area. The families at Kinneddar Park have been let down, and thousands of families across Scotland, from Ayrshire through Lanarkshire and Midlothian to Fife, are suffering similarly.
Mining companies were supposed to buy insurance bonds to pay for land restoration, but there is a huge deficit and insufficient funds are available to restore all the eyesores. Given the scale of the problem, will the First Minister order an independent inquiry into this failure?
The first task and job to be done is what Fergus Ewing is doing at present. He is doing everything that he can to preserve employment in the opencast industry and to secure, with the support of local authorities, the necessary environmental clean-up.
I say to Willie Rennie that, yes, it is true that bonds were meant to be provided for, and I agree with his description of them. I hope and believe that, when we have legislative control over such matters in this Parliament, we will make sure that such things are enforced. Surely part and parcel of what we should do in this Parliament is ensuring that not just jobs but communities are protected.
I welcome the First Minister’s understanding of the situation, but local authorities have the powers now to enforce appropriate restoration bonds. It is not as if they are deprived of the powers that would suddenly resolve the problem.
The First Minister referred to the work of Fergus Ewing, whom I commend for the work that he is doing in the coal task force. However, that is primarily looking at the needs of the business side. The proposed restoration trust has no real bite and is, in fact, a more convenient alternative to restoration bonds for the industry, which would risk further environmental problems in the future.
While some companies have made millions, communities have been left environmentally bankrupt. The industry is now seeking to dump opencast sites for other people to clean up—Kinneddar Park is one of them. Communities have endured years of noise, dust and heavy transport, and they now fear a legacy of derelict sites, polluted water and scarred landscapes. I encourage and urge the First Minister to set up an independent inquiry, as communities were promised that the mistakes of the past would not be repeated, but they were. For the sake of the families at Kinneddar Park and many others, will the First Minister act?
First, I am extremely sympathetic on the issue, but let us just consider Willie Rennie’s statement about what local authorities can and cannot do. The environmental powers of local authorities mean very little if the company concerned has gone out of business. There are no assets to chase in that position, which is exactly why the provisions about posting bonds and having that fund available are of such great significance—those are the powers that I was referring to. I do not think that any reasonable person could blame East Ayrshire Council or Fife Council for not being in a position to chase money that is no longer there.
Secondly, on the restoration fund that Fergus Ewing has pioneered, it is simply untrue to say that he has been solely concerned with jobs in the industry—which are, incidentally, a legitimate concern. He has also been concerned, through the restoration fund, to try to help the situation.
I say to Willie Rennie that he makes the case that I would make. If we are going to pursue an industry that could leave people with such environmental damage, we must have an environmental framework that makes sure that the funds to restore sites are independent of the corporate entity. I look forward to the member and me drafting such legislation when this Parliament has the powers to do it.
Security (Prestwick Airport)
4. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the security services regarding the emergency landing at Prestwick airport on 15 June 2013. (S4F-01474)
I am pleased to say that Police Scotland kept the Scottish Government fully informed of the developments following the diversion to Prestwick airport of EgyptAir flight MS 985. Police Scotland met the plane on arrival at Prestwick airport and 100 officers from the specialist crime division undertook a controlled disembarkation of the plane, searched the plane and interviewed all the passengers and crew before the flight continued to New York.
Among other things, the incident highlights the strategic importance of Prestwick as an airport that has the necessary facilities to receive high-risk flights that involve the potential for hijacking or terrorism. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has therefore written to the United Kingdom Home Secretary this week to highlight the huge and vital role that Prestwick played in the latest incident, and to commend, as we all should, the multi-agency response that was led by Police Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for his comprehensive answer. As he said, the incident highlights the importance of Prestwick airport to Scotland and to the aerospace industry—not just as a travel, maintenance, repair and overhaul airport, but as a resilience airport for military and antiterrorist purposes.
However, Prestwick would, along with other Scottish airports, be neglected because of the London coalition’s £50 billion plus obsession with a new airport for the south-east of England. Does the First Minister agree that we should have a comprehensive and independent air and airport strategy for Scotland, that would include more international direct flights to Scotland, and which would start to take effect post independence day in 2016?
The obsession of the Westminster Government that is causing the most damage to Prestwick and other airports, and to connectivity in Scotland, is the obsession with air passenger duty and the discrimination that it creates against airports in Scotland and, indeed, against airports in the northern regions of England.
Devolution of air passenger duty to the Scottish Parliament, which would enable it to take effective action to increase connectivity in Scotland, was certainly supported by a majority—I think, a large majority—in this Parliament. I hope that the Tories and Labour, with their alliance in the better together campaign, have not lost their enthusiasm for seeing air passenger duty devolved to this Parliament so that we can take effective action on behalf of Prestwick and the other airports in Scotland.
Scottish Police Authority (Information Technology)
5. To ask the First Minister what impact the recent decision by three senior executives to leave the Scottish Police Authority will have on its information technology strategy. (S4F-01491)
I have no reason to believe that their decision will have any impact. The official who is responsible for the delivery of the Scottish Police Authority’s IT strategy is its chief information officer and not one of the three people to have left their interim roles at the SPA. The authority continues to be led by an able, skilled and experienced board.
The First Minister talked previously of “creative tension” across Scottish policing. With the loss of the head of finance, of the head of governance and strategy and of the chief executive officer—the accountable officer for the Scottish Police Authority—it is clear that the factors that lie behind the crisis are more than “creative” tensions. Will this week’s meeting of senior officials to reorganise governance responsibilities across Police Scotland and the SPA finally indicate that the Government is coming to grips with this taxpayer-funded £1 billion organisation and deliver an efficient single police force?
I do not think that we should question the efficiency of the Police Service of Scotland, given that recorded crime in this country is now at a 39-year low thanks to the commitment of the officers of the service, whose numbers are up by 1,262 since the Government took office. Thank goodness those officers are in place and are policing our communities.
On IT, it is important for Graeme Pearson to know—because he has expressed concern about the matter in the past—not just that the responsible officer is not one of those leaving interim appointments at the Scottish Police Authority, but that the i6 programme is a potential solution to the challenges of the legacy of having previously had so many separate boards. I think that Graeme Pearson has pointed out the lunacy of having IT systems across Scotland that could not communicate with each other.
The i6 proposal for the acquisition of a single information and communication technology system for the police service to cover recording, management and analysis of data on crime, vulnerable persons, criminal justice, custody, missing persons and property, is a major advance, and I am pleased to say that discussions with the SPA indicate that the estimated total cost of £45 million over 10 years is affordable within its existing budget. I know that the SPA board will consider the proposal next week, on 26 June.
Piper Alpha Disaster
6. To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster. (S4F-01484)
The Piper Alpha disaster remains the world’s worst offshore platform disaster, and the events of 25 years ago remain etched in the memories of those of us who are old enough to remember them.
The Government is setting out and has set out a range of ministerial involvement in the very important activities that are taking place over the next two weeks, which include the offshore safety conference and the screen premiere of “Fire in the Night”, which is a hugely effective film and is hugely important in bringing to a new generation both the horror of Piper Alpha and the absolute importance of ensuring that such a disaster does not happen again.
The Pound for Piper Memorial Trust appeal is raising funds to ensure that families and others who were affected by the Piper Alpha disaster have a peaceful place to remember their loved ones for years to come. We were able to contribute to that appeal. I commend the efforts of the trust’s campaign to give the bereaved families an appropriate place to remember their loved ones in Aberdeen.
I take the opportunity to highlight the screening of “Fire in the Night” at the Belmont Picturehouse in Aberdeen this Friday, and its wider distribution in the weeks ahead. Will the First Minister join me in welcoming that feature-length documentary as an important testimony to the terrible events for new generations to learn from?
Yes, I will. “Fire in the Night” has great importance for a new generation, and I hope and believe that we can ensure that every schoolchild in Scotland has access to the information that is contained in it. It is really important that people remember Piper Alpha and the critical importance of safety in the North Sea.
However, it is not just children and young people in Scotland who have to remember that, of course; we have to remember that many current offshore workers were not alive when the Piper Alpha disaster happened 25 years ago. Therefore, the initiative to have a special safety film screened to every single offshore worker—to remind them why they have the permit-to-work system and the safety-case system that Lord Cullen recommended, and which was introduced after the Piper Alpha disaster, as one of his 106 recommendations—is crucial.
In terms of public obligation, it is a necessity to ensure that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is properly manned and that offshore safety considerations are properly organised, because they are part of the public infrastructure. Our commitment is to ensure that offshore workers, who work in the most hazardous of environments, are properly protected.