First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of this hugely historic day. (S4F-01266)
I will be making a parliamentary statement on Scotland’s referendum, which will include the date on which the people of Scotland will be able to decide their own future.
This week, John Swinney defied the First Minister in a key policy: he actually answered a question. John Swinney said that a separate Scotland would consider no currency option other than the pound sterling. That would, of course, put Scotland in a very weak negotiating position with the rest of the United Kingdom and the Bank of England if there was a yes vote, with nowhere else to go.
Presiding Officer, you will know that I am an eternal optimist, and we all live in hope. [Interruption.] In fact, I am such an optimist that I even harbour the hope that, at some point, a Scottish National Party back bencher will do something other than shout to order. [Interruption.] Will the First Minister—[Interruption.]
Order.
Will the First Minister tell the people of Scotland what his plan B is if the deal that the Bank of England offers is bad for the country?
I think that Johann Lamont describing herself as “an eternal optimist” constitutes misleading the chamber. [Interruption.]
Order.
Johann Lamont has many outstanding qualities, but she is not a ray of sunshine when she comes before us.
As Johann Lamont should well know, the Government’s policy on a sterling area for an independent Scotland was set out in huge detail by the fiscal commission. We discussed the matter last week, and the policy has not changed over the past week. That is the policy, which has been hugely considered. We think that it is the best option for Scotland, and I suggest that, at last, Johann Lamont should read the report and try to digest what it says.
It is the First Minister who has form on misleading the chamber, not me. True to form, he did not, of course, answer the question that was asked.
I agree with the First Minister that George Osborne is bad for Scotland, but I just do not understand why he thinks that George Osborne would be good to Scotland if we left the United Kingdom.
Let us look at the First Minister’s negotiating skills. We should remember that, when Westminster offered to give him the power to hold the referendum, he said that that was an attack on Scottish democracy. He then backed down on having his own electoral commission, he backed down on having a second question, and he backed down on spending limits. He then called the climbdown “the historic Edinburgh agreement”.
It is clear that the First Minister has shown his hand to George Osborne. Will he now tell the people what the Bank of England would control if there was a separate Scotland?
I think that Johann Lamont being depressing before the event—in suggesting that we could not organise the referendum, that there would not be an agreement, and that there would be all sorts of difficulties—is part of her nature. However, on being depressing after the event, the Edinburgh agreement is agreed, we are about to announce the referendum bill and the date of the referendum, and Scotland’s referendum will have the highest standards of democratic legitimacy in international terms. What possible justification does the Labour Party have for being negative about the agreement and what we are about to announce?
I know that it must be an awful disappointment to the Labour Party that none of the extraordinary difficulties that it forecast has come to pass, but, on this day, let us welcome the fact that that agreement has come forward and that Scotland will have the right to choose its own future.
I agree that the chancellor controls Scotland. Johann Lamont says that she is opposed to that—as I am—but I wish that she would tell her colleague Gordon Banks, who on television last night, when faced with a choice on whether to condemn the cut in Scotland’s resource that is happening this coming year, decided instead to side with the Conservative Party.
Basically, there is a difference between monetary and fiscal policy. In fiscal terms, last year for example, Scotland would have had the opportunity to take advantage of the £4.4 billion relative surplus, which is £800 for every man, woman and child. In anyone’s terms, that is a major advantage and freedom for the people of Scotland to have.
I found it astonishing last night that Stewart Hosie supported the Tories in cutting corporation tax.
Yesterday, Joe FitzPatrick said that today was going to be a “historic” day, but that clearly does not reach as far as the First Minister ever answering the question that he is asked. The First Minister does not like George Osborne, but he is saying that, in an independent Scotland, George Osborne would have more power here than he currently has.
Members: Oh!
Of course he would, because the First Minister is relying—[Interruption.]
Order!
The First Minister has said that he will rely on sterling and has no plan B. That is not a strong negotiating position.
Ultimately, the First Minister is saying that the people of Scotland just have to take his word for it that everything will be fine. Let us therefore look at the First Minister’s record on keeping his word—and I am not talking just about giving the most accurate answer ever given to any Parliament anywhere.
Last year, at his party conference, the First Minister promised the best childcare package anywhere but, a year on, not one more childcare place has been created as a result of that announcement. Last year, he boasted about hospital waiting times, but we now know that the figures were fiddled. Do members remember when he told the people of Glasgow how they were going to vote weeks before the polls opened? That turned out well. Does the First Minister understand why an increasing number of people simply do not believe a word that he says?
I have a whole menu to select from on a variety of subjects, but let me return to what I think Johann Lamont’s question was about, which is monetary and fiscal policy.
Monetary policy is controlled by the Bank of England, which is an independent operation, and fiscal policy is controlled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I thought that that point would be well understood, because the Labour Party and the other Opposition parties at Westminster had been arguing for a change in fiscal policy yesterday. Unfortunately, that major and significant change did not come about.
The big advantage of controlling our own fiscal policy is that, in an independent Scotland, the Parliament, on behalf of the people of Scotland, would have control over taxation and spending. That would include the ability to mobilise the relative surplus, which was £4.4 billion last year, and put it to the advantage of the Scottish economy, by saving for the future or by bringing about the transformation in the Scottish economy that everyone supports. That is the advantage of controlling our own fiscal policy.
On the range of policies that the Labour Party has attacked and that the Government has carried through, Johann Lamont is doing nothing different from what her predecessors did in the previous session of Parliament. Time after time, they said, “Look, this isn’t working and that’s not working.” Yet, when it came to the people’s judgment two years ago, the people of Scotland looked at the incredible negativity of the Labour Party and its lack of ambition, ideas and thoughts for the future, and then they looked at the track record, team and vision of the Government and they returned us with an overwhelming majority.
The First Minister started to answer the question that I asked previously. I asked about his record on waiting times and childcare, but he started talking about something else. There is nothing more cynical in government than, when challenged about what is happening now, saying that it will all be right at some point in future if we could just have independence. That is cynicism.
This afternoon we will find out whether the First Minister did tell Rupert Murdoch the date of the referendum first or whether he gave Rupert one of the most accurate tip-offs ever given to any newspaper proprietor, anywhere. We will find out how long Scotland is to remain on pause while the First Minister tries to sell Scots a deal that Scotland rejects.
What we have now is Scotland on pause: a Scotland with 120,000 fewer students in our colleges, a Scotland with pensioners languishing on trolleys in hospital corridors—
Members: Doom and gloom!
Order.
I will try again, because it is true. We have a Scotland in which pensioners are languishing for hours on trolleys in hospital corridors, without getting treatment. We have a Scotland that is suffering from Tory cuts, which the First Minister doubles—[Interruption.]
Order.
A Scotland that is suffering from Tory cuts—[Interruption.] I will just wait until you are quiet, and then I will say it so that you can hear it—that worked when I was in the classroom and there is no reason why it should not work now. I do not know what time the bell goes. [Laughter.]
I will say it again: a Scotland suffering from Tory cuts that the First Minister doubles and passes on to our communities.
When Scotland rejects him, how will the First Minister explain to the student, the pensioner and the patient why he wasted so many years concentrating on his obsession and not on their needs?
I really think that it is difficult for the Labour Party to complain about Tory cuts in Scotland when they are in alliance with the Conservative Party in an attempt to deny Scotland the right to determine its own future.
On nursery education, we are moving to 600 hours for three and four-year-olds in Scotland—[Interruption.]
Order.
We inherited 412 hours from the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition. That seems to me to be, in anyone’s terms, a substantial improvement for the people of Scotland.
We have guaranteed and delivered real-term spending for the health service in Scotland—something that would not have been done by the Labour Party if it had come to power in Scotland and which was not done by the Labour Party in Wales.
This very week we have seen important reductions in youth unemployment, which is down by 8 per cent—a third—over the past year. Yet Labour spokesmen, such as Jenny Marra just two days ago, talk about youth unemployment in Scotland at 25 per cent. It is down to 17 per cent, which is still far too high but is a dramatic improvement over the past year. Either Labour does not know that that has happened or it prefers to portray the rate as 25 per cent, as if the improvement and guarantees to young people had never happened.
Those are all improvements under devolution. Not to understand that, when Westminster sets the budget of Scotland and, as it did yesterday, cuts the budget of Scotland, this devolved Parliament cannot manufacture finance from nowhere, as Westminster is in control of our budget, is to misunderstand the basic challenge in Scottish politics.
This week, Labour abstained on workfare in the House of Commons, it abstained on Trident in this very chamber and it even abstained on the Iraq war in this very chamber. What Scotland needs is a Government that does not abstain but which takes control of the fiscal policy of Scotland and takes us forward into a prosperous and just future.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01261)
No plans, near future.
I invite the First Minister to join me in congratulating the chancellor on scrapping the fuel duty rise, again cutting corporation tax, to 20 per cent—a rate that is not unadjacent to what the First Minister is looking for—and for lifting 224,000 Scots out of income tax altogether.
Yesterday there was a row over help in the budget for house-hunters, in the form of loans and equity, to get people on to the property ladder. The Scottish Government has trumpeted on many occasions the £200 million that it has put into housing since the spending review. Can I ask the First Minister whether any of that money is in the form of loans and equity?
We have a loans and equity scheme in Scotland, but that is not what the row to which Ruth Davidson referred was about. The row was about the Treasury and the Scotland Office trying to portray yesterday’s budget as providing an increase in the ability of this Government to spend on infrastructure and capital spending. In fact, what we found very quickly was that far from it being an increase, it was a £50 million cut in this coming financial year, for which budgets have already been set for the health service, across the agencies, and for police, fire and local government. For everybody in Scotland we have to find a £50 million cut in this coming financial year as a result of what the Treasury was doing by sleight of hand.
I can demonstrate that that was not just intended to mislead this Government and the people; it actually misled some of Ruth Davidson’s colleagues in the Conservative-Liberal alliance in this chamber. Given that, will the Conservative Party join us in saying that it is not a good idea to cut £50 million this coming year—£90 million over the next two years—of hard cash from the Scottish budget, cash that has already been allocated to spending departments around the country? Will Ruth Davidson come forward with her party’s suggestions for where the cuts can be found?
However much the First Minister complains now, however much John Swinney complained yesterday, adding revenue and capital together, £176 million came to Scotland yesterday as a result of that budget. [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister was very keen to get away from the question that I asked him about equity spending and loans for housing. Of the £200 million that this Government has trumpeted since the spending review period, £42 million has been in loans and equity.
In September, we heard from Alex Neil that increasing shared equity was
“good news for households and families”
which would
“help people on moderate to low incomes across Scotland get on the property ladder.”
Yesterday, the finance secretary said that it was “funny money”, “deceitful” and “baloney”. Six months ago, the same UK cash for shared equity was good news, but in referendum-date week it is described as “deceitful”.
There is a quarter of a billion pounds on the table. Will the First Minister keep playing political football with it, or will he get on, use it and help people get on to the housing ladder in Scotland?
I will point out a number of things to Ruth Davidson. First, in terms of the overall impact of the budget, there is work that shows that the cuts in child benefit, child tax credit, working tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, disability living allowance, employment and support allowance and child trust funds more than overpower any help that has been given over since 2010 by the Westminster Government. In fact, for the bottom households—households of two adults and two children on an income of £20,000—the impact, taking everything into account, is 3.4 per cent of their income, or £800 per household. That takes into account the Liberals’ claims on personal tax allowance—it takes everything into account. I do not think that that is a record that any coalition Government should be proud of.
As I tried to point out to Ruth Davidson, what we are complaining about is the hard cash cut to the budget this year and next. I said that I would demonstrate beyond any doubt that that had misled, or was intended to mislead, people. I can say exactly why. Michael Moore’s statement that we would have increased spending power came out at 1.46 pm and, by 3.11 pm, there was a press statement by the Liberal Democrats—never to be beaten in getting their press statements out—that we should spend the additional money on infrastructure in the north-east of Scotland, such as additional road and rail. One cannot spend financial transactions on road and rail investment. Financial transactions are loans that have to be paid back. The cuts that are coming are hard cash cuts that will have to come off departmental or local government budgets in Scotland.
Instead of just saying, “We are putting forward this idea in the housing market”—which of course we will try to turn into an increase in houses, not just house prices—Ruth Davidson should say what the reason was for portraying that as something that Willie Rennie was deceived into believing could transform the road and rail infrastructure of the north-east of Scotland. [Interruption.]
Ruth Davidson is taking no responsibility for Willie Rennie. I thought that Danny Alexander and George Osborne were at one yesterday in portraying this. The truth is that the Tories tried to persuade people that loans were actually hard cash, but they cut the cash available to public services in Scotland, just as they have cut the cash to ordinary working families in this country. Believe me, that is nothing to be proud of.
International Development Fund (Support for Malawi)
3. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is using its international development fund to support Malawi. (S4F-01275)
I know that many members took part in this week’s commemorations of the bicentenary of David Livingstone. On Sunday I had the privilege of welcoming Her Excellency President Joyce Banda to Scotland for the first engagement of her visit, which was fittingly held in the David Livingstone centre in Blantyre. As part of that day’s events President Banda presented the communities league cup and we were also pleased to announce nearly £5 million of funding for 15 projects in Malawi, for the Malawi development programme. They will focus on healthcare and economic growth, and will use the existing strong links between educational institutions, healthcare providers and third sector organisations in our two countries.
This week, I have had the great privilege of spending time with the hon Albert Thindwa MP, my Malawian parliamentary pair. One of his priorities is education, especially for girls. Given that extreme poverty in countries such as Malawi impacts on women and girls more severely than men and given that the majority of the world’s poor are female, can the First Minister confirm that the Scottish Government’s action on international development will reflect that?
Yes; I can. We should note again that two of our colleagues have been in Malawi this week to renew their relationship with the people and politicians of Malawi. Christina McKelvie is correct to say that, all too often, women and girls bear the brunt of extreme poverty. For example, every day 800 women around the world die from pregnancy and childbirth complications. The huge majority of those deaths in developing countries are preventable, which is one of the reasons why our latest round of funding for Malawi includes more than £1 million for three projects that target maternal healthcare. The funds will support training for clinical professionals and help improve maternal health in some of the most remote rural areas of Malawi. I know that those efforts have all-party, cross-party support—I hope that they have unanimous support—in this chamber, just as President Banda was welcomed by us all on Tuesday.
The work that successive Scottish Governments have carried out in partnership with the Malawian Government, Scottish non-government organisations and others has indeed been something of which we can all be proud.
Of course, this week we have been celebrating David Livingstone, who was a medical missionary and a pioneer in treating and identifying tropical disease. In his bicentennial year, it seems that the most fitting tribute that we could offer him would be to redouble our efforts to help combat the diseases that killed David and Mary Livingstone and which tragically continue to devastate the continent to this day. Does the First Minister agree?
Yes. I accept that and I welcome and appreciate the all-party nature of support for not just the international profile of the Scottish Government and Parliament in Malawi, but the extension of the international aid programme, which I know that Patricia Ferguson supports. She makes an excellent point; in celebrating the bicentenary of David Livingstone, part of the legacy is to understand the full nature of his efforts.
One thing that stands out in terms of how people remember that legacy is his campaign—his crusade—against slavery. That is part of his legacy and our heritage, as well as the medical improvements and innovations of which Patricia Ferguson speaks.
United Kingdom Budget 2013
4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the 2013 United Kingdom budget. (S4F-01274)
If last year was the omnishambles, this year was the tartan shambles, because of the deceit in the suggestion that a £50 million cut in departmental budgets was actually an increase in discretionary spending in Scotland. Those claims were incomprehensible and were revised later in the day by the Scotland Office.
All that poses serious questions for those Opposition parties that keep demanding extra spending by the Scottish Government, with apparently no realisation that the purse strings in this Parliament are currently controlled by the UK Treasury. That is exactly why we need control of these commanding heights of fiscal policy.
How does the First Minister react to the chancellor and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s idea that the oil that we have in the North Sea is not really worth very much these days?
The extraordinary argument of some parties in this chamber—that nuclear weapons in Scotland are a tremendous asset and North Sea oil and gas are a tremendous liability—is strange. I think that most folk in Scotland would see our oil, gas and energy reserves as a tremendous asset and the concentration of weapons of mass destruction as the big liability.
By how much more than George Osborne has done would the Scottish Government cut corporation tax in a separate Scotland?
I sat in the House of Commons during Gordon Brown’s terms as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister and saw progressive cuts in corporation tax by the Labour Administration. If Neil Findlay is denying that he thought that those cuts were a good and sensible idea, he should perhaps send an email to Gordon Brown to say so. [Interruption.]
Order.
Every economic and social policy that we devise for an independent Scotland will be designed to do two things: increase the wealth of the country, and increase the fairness and equity in this country. That is exactly why we do it.
Whether the right-wing rhetoric of continual corporation tax cuts and giveaways to big business comes from the Tories, the Liberals or new Labour, it is deeply disappointing that the First Minister and his colleagues can only echo it. Does the First Minister not see that those wealthy, tax-dodging corporate interests have had it their own way for far too long under successive Governments, and will he drop this absurd idea of cutting corporation tax even further in an independent Scotland?
Patrick Harvie and I, today of all days, will not have a huge disagreement, but I will say that prosperity and equity should go together in terms of our policies for Scotland, and we should ensure that the policies that we devise are designed to increase the wealth and the health and welfare of the country.
Of course, Patrick Harvie will have noticed that one of the Nobel laureates on the Scottish Government’s fiscal commission is Joseph Stiglitz, who makes exactly the point that the most wealthy countries across the globe are also those that value social equity. If Patrick Harvie and I pay close attention to Joe Stiglitz’s strictures on those matters, we will not go far wrong in our alliance.
Housing loans and equity funding were criticised heavily by a rather statesmanlike John Swinney yesterday. However, can the First Minister tell us why loans and equity for funding are not classed as real money when they come from the United Kingdom Government, but are enthusiastically included as real money when the Scottish Government quotes its housing spend figures?
Because we do not pretend that there is not a cut in spending when there is. [Interruption.]
Order.
I look forward to the next time that Gavin Brown is allowed to go to the Conservatives’ front bench and can tell us all the things that we should spend money on. I look forward to him telling us how this latest cut to the Scottish budget is going to be financed and portrayed.
What we see from Labour, the Tories and quickest of all from the Liberal Democrats is a tremendous anxiety to spend money that Westminster is not providing in the Scottish budget, but no enthusiasm whatsoever to tell us how we can accommodate the real-terms—and now monetary-terms—cuts that we see in the Scottish budget. The failure to appreciate that basic lesson is perhaps one of the reasons why the unionist parties are united in not understanding the necessity, importance and urgency of this country having control of its own resources.
Medical Secretaries
5. To ask the First Minister what impact reported reductions in the number of medical secretaries are having on patient care. (S4F-01268)
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has sought assurances that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is taking seriously the concerns that have been raised by consultants. Directors of the board met clinicians and representatives last week and committed to working with them to improve the turnaround in correspondence, to review productivity and ways of working and to incorporate lessons that are learned from the implementation of the TrakCare patient administration system as it is rolled out across the health board and the city.
Medical secretaries are vital to high-quality care. They deal not only with letters but with communication with primary care staff and patients.
The number of letters that are not being completed in seven days has gone from 13 per cent to more than 80 per cent, and one in four are not completed in 14 days. When Nicola Sturgeon—during her time as Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy—announced a 25 per cent cut in management, did that include band 4 medical secretaries?
I welcome the fact that the health board is now listening, but will the First Minister ask the current cabinet secretary to ensure that the situation is not happening in other boards? I am getting reports that it is, and it is an issue that seriously affects patient care.
Management excluded clinical staff; that is the point that the then health secretary was making. Richard Simpson must know that, across the health service and particularly in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, we are moving from having 11 different information technology systems—a situation that was inherited in 2007—to the new TrakCare system. That process undoubtedly has to be managed carefully and properly. Surely no one, least of all Richard Simpson, would deny that that move has to be made, given the criticism that has been made of the current and obsolete IT systems in the health service. Moving to TrakCare is exactly what needs to be done.
As I have said, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing is already in contact with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to ensure that the matter can be dealt with in a way that does not impede the efficiency of the service, least of all patient care.
National Health Service Staff (Whistleblowing)
6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether whistleblowing arrangements for NHS staff are adequate. (S4F-01265)
The national health service has a number of antibullying policies in place. To supplement those, a national confidential alert line will be in place from 2 April. The hotline will allow any member of NHS staff to raise concerns in confidence and to receive advice on how to proceed independently of the service itself. I am confident that that service will support and enhance existing policies, which all NHS boards in Scotland are required to have in place, by providing an additional level of support for staff.
The First Minister will be aware that, in January, senior surgeons and clinicians at Perth royal infirmary felt the need to state publicly, through the columns of newspapers, their concerns about management decisions in NHS Tayside. He will know that, last week, a group of nurses felt the need to do the same.
Can the First Minister give an assurance that those concerns are being fully investigated? What further steps will be taken by the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a culture of trust and openness within NHS management?
Tomorrow, the chief executive will meet elected members to discuss exactly those concerns. He will outline the staffing levels that are in place, which are reviewed regularly in partnership with staff, ensuring that safety is given paramount importance at that hospital.
The initiatives that are being taken, including the helpline, are designed precisely to underpin the confidence and freedom of NHS staff to speak, ensuring that we have a culture of improvement in our health service.
That ends First Minister’s questions. There will now be a short pause to allow members who are not participating in the members’ business debate to leave and to allow the public gallery to clear.