First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01690)
I have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
This week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a respected independent think tank often quoted by the First Minister, said that because of falling North Sea oil revenues and an ageing population, an independent Scotland would face significant tax rises or public spending cuts.
I do not suppose that any of us here imagines that we are going to get an answer, but with a cock of the head and an indignant sideways look, could the First Minister tell us why the IFS is scaremongering like that?
We would do what the IFS report itself indicates: we would increase the Scottish tax base by growing the economy and generating extra revenue.
I do not know whether Johann Lamont is aware that the model that the IFS used, which is the Office for Budget Responsibility model, suggests that the United Kingdom will be in deficit for every one of the next 50 years—the next half century. It indicates that UK Governments will have to raise taxation or reduce expenditure to meet that sustained position. That is what the model tells us.
Instead of looking at that, we should be looking in Scotland at how we change the circumstances of this country by using investment to grow the economy, to generate more jobs and revenue and to give us a sustainable future.
The IFS is just asking us to look at the real world. Why would we bother with all that malarkey when we can just make things up as we go along? How will we deal with an ageing population? Presumably we will all just get younger under independence. There will be £300,000-worth of Oil of Olay for each man, woman and child.
Of course, the IFS said that even in its most optimistic of forecasts, income tax would have to go up by 8p or VAT would have to rise to 27 per cent to fill the fiscal black hole.
Chuckling at his own jokes, as he likes to do, and selectively quoting lines that suit his argument—I am sure that he is looking for them right now—could the First Minister tell us why the people of Scotland should believe him rather than the evidence of their own eyes?
Let us talk about what is agreed in the IFS report. Page 9 confirms that Scotland pays more tax per head than the UK at the moment. Page 11 confirms that Scotland is in a stronger fiscal position than the rest of the UK.
To quote exactly, the report says:
“the average revenues raised per person in Scotland (£11,079 in 2013–14 prices) were higher than for the UK as a whole (£9,342 ... )”.
The IFS has validated an argument that I have brought to the chamber many times, from the “Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland”—GERS—forecast, that Scotland more than pays its way in the UK. In the past five years, that has amounted to many billions of pounds that could have been invested in Scottish public services, used to lower the rate of borrowing, or used to do a combination of both. However, because of our position with the UK, those resources have not been available to the people of Scotland.
Our case is a simple one: instead of not having those resources available, why not invest in the economy? Why not grow productivity—grow our exports—and ensure that we have growth in the economy, which generates more revenue, so that we do not have the dreadful future that has been forecast for the UK by the IFS, which says that it will be in deficit for the next 50 years?
Johann Lamont talks about changing the age structure of the country in an independent Scotland. How would we do that? Perhaps we could do it by allowing young Scots who want to work in this country the opportunity to stay here—or perhaps we could do it by not kicking out, as the Border Agency does, the many skilled young people who come to study at our universities and desperately want to work either for a time or permanently in Scotland. Would that not help to change the population’s age structure? Of course these things must be right because they are controlled from London and Johann Lamont backs control from London of the immigration policy that would consign us to that prospect.
The IFS’s central forecast, which has been taken from the Office of National Statistics, postulates 4 per cent population growth in Scotland over the next 50 years. The population of Scotland has grown by 5 per cent over the past 10 years but, as the IFS tells us, if we remain trapped in the policies that are governed from Westminster, Scotland faces a very poor prospect indeed. If we grow the economy and put the investment in, we have a bright and certain future.
Another of the First Minister’s tricks is to go on and on answering a question that he was not asked. When the IFS says that in its most optimistic forecast income tax would have to go up by 8p or VAT rise to 27 per cent to fill the fiscal black hole, only the First Minister could say that the IFS validates his position. It does not.
Indeed, I would not be surprised if convicted Enron executives across the United States were, at the moment, planning their appeals, saying, “I know we fiddled the figures, but Alex Salmond has taken it to a whole new level.” With every economic paper the First Minister publishes, Fred Goodwin must feel a day closer to redemption; each prospectus must make Bernie Madoff spit out his breakfast in admiration.
Feeling free to quote a former Labour chancellor in a falsetto voice, to dig up a blog that he was trawling through last night or to give us some more selective quotes like the last few we just got, can the First Minister explain to us why the fiscal black hole exposed by the IFS does not actually exist and why there is nothing to worry about after all?
I point out to Johann Lamont that I quoted from the IFS because I think it very useful in agreeing the current position. The IFS backs the Scottish Government GERS figures in showing that Scotland more than pays its way in the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I hear from the Tory benches that that it is not true. I have already given one quote; page 11 of the report points out that
“Scotland exceeded revenues by £1,550 per person”.
Given that direct quote from the IFS, let us agree that over the five-year period Scotland has more than paid its way within the UK.
I have pointed out to Johann Lamont that I do not think that the population structure of this country is a given; I think that it would be enormously improved if we did not refuse young Scots an opportunity to work in their own country and if we allowed other skilled people, many of whom we have educated, to work in Scotland. That, to me, would bring about a substantial and important change with regard to the sorts of challenges that the IFS has indicated and which face all European economies.
I have substantial admiration for the IFS, unlike Westminster politicians, including Alistair Darling, who have dismissed its various reports. Indeed, I see that the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has
“taken the highly unusual step of attacking the ... Institute for Fiscal Studies, describing its methods of measuring the fairness of the coalition's controversial spending review as ‘distorted and a complete nonsense’.”
That is exactly why I have pointed out that on the basis of the IFS report we can now be reasonably certain that the arguments that we have been putting forward about Scotland being in a stronger fiscal position than the rest of the UK have been validated with regard to the past five years.
What happens over the next 50 years will depend on the policies that are pursued in this country, which, in turn, will depend on whether we have control of the policies that are pursued in this country. I say that we should get control of the economic levers, increase productivity, increase our exports and invest in our economy. Let us grow the Scottish economy and move forward to that better future.
The First Minister is guilty not just of selective quoting, but of selective thinking. The First Minister says that the IFS is helpful, but only to the extent that it agrees with him. We know that SNP back benchers are helpful to the First Minister only when they agree with him, but he ought to look at the whole of the IFS study and take it on board.
Just like at the start of his campaign, the First Minister is going to the cinema on Tuesday. What is he going to see—“Historic Day V” or “Honey I Shrunk the Fiscal Gap”? If the First Minister is to be believed, we will not just be a new country after independence, but he will invent a new arithmetic. While the choice in every other country in the world is between tax rises and cuts in spending, Alex Salmond will have us believe that we are the only country in which the future is this: how big a tax cut can we give to big business and how much more can we spend on good things? Is it not the case that at the very heart of next week’s white paper and at the heart of everything that the Government does is the belief that if the First Minister and his colleagues say something confidently and often enough, no matter how wrong it is, the people of Scotland will be daft enough to believe it?
Let me try another quote from the IFS. Johann Lamont will say that I am being selective, but I think that it underlines the points that I have been making. The IFS acknowledges that
“These factors”—
in the report—
“are inherently uncertain and could also evolve differently if Scotland were independent rather than part of the UK; in addition, they could be substantially affected by the policies chosen by the government of an independent Scotland.”
That is basically what I am saying.
Johann Lamont says that the choice is between cutting spending and increasing taxation. That would be the Labour Party’s position, with, according to the IFS/Office for Budget Responsibility analysis, a deficit in every single one of the next 50 years. We now know exactly what, if Johann Lamont has any influence, the policy of the next Labour Government would be on that issue.
I do not think that Johann Lamont is in a particularly good position to talk about either economic advisers or the real world. Fred Goodwin was the economic adviser to Alistair Darling, not to me, and the current economic adviser to the Labour Party is the Rev Paul Flowers. I do not think that that gives us a tremendous indication of what the future should hold.
In addition, in the real world at present, Labour figure after Labour figure is saying exactly what they think of the Labour Party’s current coalition with the Tories. For example, according to the Scottish Labour Party chairperson, Labour activists “simply cannot stomach” working alongside the Conservatives in the no campaign. In the real world, key Labour figures such as Alex Mosson are coming out in favour of the yes campaign. That is what is happening in the real world.
As the white paper is launched next week, the yes campaign will be reinforced. Why? Because this party and this Government have ambition for this country. We think that we can invest in the future, grow our economy and give all our people a decent 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-01685)
No plans in the near future.
Nothing that has been said in the past quarter of an hour takes away from the fact that the Institute for Fiscal Studies report said clearly that an independent Scotland would start life with such a gap in its balance sheet that either taxes would have to rise or spending would have to be slashed. Those are similar findings to those of the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, the National Institute of Social and Economic Research, the Confederation of British Industry, the David Hume Institute and any number of academics and economists whom one cares to mention. Why does the First Minister think that the IFS came to such conclusions? Was it part of some vast right-wing conspiracy, or had it just done the sums?
I think that Ruth Davidson’s interpretation is entirely wrong. The IFS’s point is not that the current budgetary fiscal position of Scotland is worse than that of the United Kingdom, but that it is, as I have just read out, better than that of the United Kingdom. Indeed, under that optimistic scenario, it will be better until 2040, according to the IFS figures.
What the IFS argues is that Scotland faces the challenges that every European economy faces because, it says, an ageing population will cause considerable difficulty. I argue that the answer to that is to grow the Scottish population by allowing people who have grown up in this country the opportunity to work in their own country and by allowing the many thousands of skilled people who want to work in Scotland to do so, as opposed to their being thrown out by Ruth Davidson’s colleagues south of the border.
If we are to address the long-term challenges that the IFS mentions, we know full well what awaits us in the United Kingdom. Perhaps some of those things would come to pass here, if they were to happen in the United Kingdom, but with the policy levers of an independent Scotland and with ambition for this country we can create a new and better future for ourselves.
To pick out half a sentence from page 11 and repeat it again and again might be a life raft of a debating point, but it does not change the headline message of the IFS report, which is that in order even to begin to balance the books, there must in an independent Scotland be either a huge spending cut or a tax rise equivalent to VAT of 27 per cent or a 9 per cent hike in income tax.
The inconvenient truth for the First Minister is that the IFS is not alone in its analysis. Independent think tanks, academics, economists, financial experts, business groups and trade bodies are all lining up and saying the same things: the books do not balance, the currency is not secure and oil is a finite resource. All of them—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Ms Davidson.
All of them are on one side of the argument, while on the other, all alone, is the First Minister, sticking his fingers in his ears, making fag-packet promises and with an economic plan that has more holes in it than Rab C Nesbitt’s string vest. All the independent experts are saying one thing and Alex Salmond is saying another, so let me ask him this: Why should voters close their eyes, cross their fingers and take a punt on the First Minister’s far-fetched claims?
The only thing that Ruth Davidson has worked out is that she should not say that we will not get “Dr Who”, which I understand she said in The Sun newspaper this morning. Unfortunately for Ruth Davidson, according to the BBC, “Dr Who” is simultaneously broadcast in 50 countries—
Seventy-five!
I am sorry. It is broadcast in 75 countries—I was underestimating—which is an increase of 25 since I started the sentence.
All the dismal forecasts of Ruth Davidson require to be challenged, but let me just say that I know that the Tory party, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have attacked the IFS’s figures in the past, but I am not doing that. I am just pointing out what the IFS itself has said.
Ruth Davidson has cited the IFS report, which in fact validates something that she has never publicly admitted, as far as I know: that Scotland more than pays its way in the United Kingdom. Over the past five years, many billions of pounds that we could have used to invest in the Scottish economy have gone south—in every sense of the term. That is in the IFS report. I know that it is an inconvenient truth, but there it is, in the IFS report.
Let us talk about what the IFS says about the future. Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, said:
“what this is saying is in order to avoid problems somewhere down the road you need to make some changes in the short run. These are perfectly plausible changes—a few per cent of national income, smaller actually than what happened or what is happening at the moment over this current period. ... As I say, this is not unusual among developed countries. Developed countries as a whole are facing these kinds of challenges”.
I have indicated how we in this party and this Government would face those challenges in an independent Scotland. We would grow the economy; we would grow the tax base of the country by growing the economy. If we stay with the United Kingdom, if we allow the Home Office to fling out talented people who want to work in this country and if we deny young Scots the opportunity to work in their own country, I have no doubt that the future will be dismal for Scotland, as is indicated in some of the IFS’s forecast. However, there is an alternative, and that alternative is to believe in the resources and the ability of the people of this country, to invest in that future and to grow the economy.
Ruth Davidson—remarkably for a Conservative Party politician—said that she felt that I am alone in these forecasts. The reason why I am here is that the substantial and overwhelming verdict of the Scottish people was to elect this Government, who have given their verdict time and again on the prospects of the Conservative Party in Scotland. When Johann Lamont talked about the ageing profile of Scotland’s population, I thought that she was talking about the Conservative Party’s support.
The reason why the Government was elected is that the people of Scotland have the nous to know that this is a country that has ingenuity and ability; our people are an ingenious people, and we have ability among our people. They also know that having vast natural resources in oil and gas is an asset and not a liability. If we combine those two things—an ingenious population and vast natural resources—we can make a success of our economy. That ambition and belief will be reflected in the white paper and reflected in the votes of the people of Scotland next year.
Very briefly, I call Duncan McNeil.
The First Minister will be aware that due to the reckless conduct of metal thieves on Tuesday, 280 homes in Greenock lost their power and four houses were set on fire, which put people’s lives at risk. The consequences go on, in that the circuit boards of all the central heating boilers have been blown and will have to be replaced, possibly with significant investment by the social landlord and homeowners. As the First Minister knows, this is part of a growing trend. Scottish Power has reported that more than 800 substations have been subjected to attacks since 2011, and that 70,000 homes in Scotland have been affected.
We appreciate that the Scottish Government is looking at legislating to address the issue, but can the First Minister assure us that it will be brought forward as soon as possible and, in the meantime, that there is co-ordinated action between the police and Scottish Power against the reckless people who are putting lives in danger?
I am very much aware of the incident, and I am aware of not just the inconvenience but the danger that was caused to Duncan McNeil’s constituents by a disgraceful theft of metal that affected power lines and power supply. I assure him that we will at the earliest opportunity bring forward legislation through the forthcoming licensing bill. More than that, there is current police action that is co-ordinated by Police Scotland and the British Transport Police, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will shortly meet Scottish Power specifically on the issue of protection and security of power lines. Action will be taken.
I agree with Duncan McNeil that it is a very serious situation. What makes it all the more galling is that the actual value of the theft was some tens of pounds, although it put hundreds of people to substantial inconvenience and some families in substantial danger, which makes the theft all the more deplorable.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01688)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Does the First Minister think that police officers are being taken off the streets to backfill civilian jobs?
No. I agree with what the chief constable has said on a number of occasions. That is not the policy of Police Scotland.
If the First Minister had actually read what the chief constable said yesterday, he would not have said what he has just said to Parliament. He was actually a lot clearer about this before, because he has said in the past that it was “utter nonsense”.
Yesterday, the chief constable said that it is happening “on a daily basis”. Now it is confirmed by the chief constable that police officers are being taken off the streets. We can add to that list police stations being shut to the public, control rooms being closed, Audit Scotland being scathing, chiefs being at loggerheads and the Scottish Police Authority saying that it just does not know where the savings will come from.
This grand mess is something that Kenny MacAskill said was “a once-in-a-generation opportunity”. Is that not a warning that, the next time they try to sell us something that is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, people might not believe a word that they say?
Unfortunately for Willie Rennie, I have read the report about the Public Audit Committee yesterday and have the full quotation before me. He quoted four words of it. The actual, full quotation is:
“We do not have a policy or strategy to backfill support staff with police officers. Of course it happens on a daily basis, but it’s not part of a plan.”—[Interruption.]
Order.
That goes along with this quotation:
“I must repeat that we do not have a strategy or plan to backfill Police Staff Roles with Police Officers. “I want as many officers as possible to be on the street in an operational role.”
Those are quotations from the chief constable—they are not just the words that Willie Rennie tried to take out of context. [Interruption.]
Order.
The difficulty for Willie Rennie on police reform is that most people would regard the advent of Police Scotland and the ability to merge 10 organisations into one as very substantial achievements indeed. Most people would regard the record numbers of police officers on the streets and in the communities of Scotland—if it was up to Willie Rennie, they would not be there—and a 39-year low in recorded crime as substantial achievements.
If people want to look for an alternative to the policies that are being pursued in Scotland of reinforcing the front line and of emphasising not the back office but the front line and people in communities, they need only glance at what happens under the control of Willie Rennie’s colleagues south of the border, where England is about to lose almost as many police officers as the record numbers that Scotland now has.
We now have three questions. I ask that the questions—and the answers, too, First Minister—be as brief as possible.
Fiscal Sustainability (Independent Scotland)
4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies on the fiscal sustainability of an independent Scotland. (S4F-01711)
As I said, given that the same forecasts from the IFS and the Office for Budget Responsibility say that the United Kingdom will run a fiscal deficit in each of the next 50 years, we should not be surprised at the long-term nature of the forecast.
Independence is the key to changing the outcome. I pointed out earlier that the IFS acknowledges and reports that the overall 50-year prognosis would be substantially affected by the policies that the Government of an independent Scotland chose. We choose policies for growth and achievement. That will make the difference.
I spoke to Paul Johnson, the IFS director, on Tuesday. He admitted that the IFS has carried out no work on the impact of the UK leaving the European Union following the proposed 2017 referendum. Does the First Minister agree that that would be a better focus for the IFS than attempting to predict Scotland’s economic circumstances half a century into the future?
Does the First Minister also agree that what the IFS got right was confirmation that Scotland’s economy performs better than the UK’s at present, with a relative budget surplus of £12.6 billion over the past five years, and that an independent Scotland could reform the tax system to boost the economy and increase growth?
That—in particular, the first bit, which was validated in the IFS report and is now, presumably, universally accepted across the chamber—is exactly what Scotland has lost out on over the past five years. We have been in a consistently stronger fiscal position than the UK as a whole but unable to use those massive resources for the benefit of the Scottish economy.
As we have already discussed, I believe in changing the parameters of the population forecasts by investing in the future of the economy. There are any number of young Scots who want to work in the Scottish economy if they are given the choice to do so. It is a foolish and mistaken policy to fling people out of the country when they want to commit themselves to Scotland.
We can rise to the challenges. We can invest in the future and grow the economy. That is an altogether more convincing prospect than the dismal prospects offered by the unionist parties, who would keep us in the current box of low growth and low aspiration in Scotland.
Wilful Neglect of Patients
5. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will bring forward plans to extend legislation to make wilful neglect of patients a criminal offence. (S4F-01705)
I thank Rhoda Grant for giving me the opportunity to address the question, because it is hugely important.
The recommendation on wilful neglect becoming a criminal offence was made by the world-renowned patient safety expert Professor Don Berwick in relation to how the safety of patients in NHS England could be improved in the wake of the Mid Staffordshire scandal.
Rhoda Grant will be aware that wilful neglect is already an offence when it relates to mental health patients in Scotland. We are examining the best legislative manner in which to extend that protection to all patients. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will update Parliament before the end of the year on how we can take that forward.
The First Minister will be aware of Scottish Labour’s proposal to create an integrated health and social care inspectorate that is independent of Government, is accessible to staff and patients to allow them to raise their concerns and has the powers to take tough, decisive action. Will he explain to us why he has failed to consider our proposal so far?
All proposals are considered. The integration of health and social care is hugely important, and we will look at all proposals as we carry forward that policy.
I think that Rhoda Grant is being very unfair to the Scottish health service, in the light of its achievements on patient safety. Given that the recommendation to which she refers was made by Professor Don Berwick, perhaps we should look at what he said about patient safety in Scotland. He said:
“The Scottish Patient Safety Programme is without doubt one of the most ambitious patient safety initiatives in the world—national in scale, bold in aims, and disciplined in science ... aligned toward a common vision, making Scotland the safest nation on earth from the viewpoint of health care.”
That is the view of the person whose recommendation Rhoda Grant has asked us to consider. Obviously, we will consider it favourably. Nine of the 10 key recommendations have already been put in place in Scotland as part of the patient safety programme, and the 10th one, which Rhoda Grant asked me about, is one that we will consider positively, so that we can live up to Professor Don Berwick’s estimation of patient safety in Scotland.
Police Scotland (Statistics)
6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that statistics presented by Police Scotland are accurate. (S4F-01695)
Scotland is now a safer place, as we know, and that is supported by the 1,000 additional officers that we have provided, in contrast to what is happening south of the border.
There is a well-established system in place to ensure consistent and accurate reporting of police data from the eight legacy police forces and Police Scotland. The Scottish crime recording standard, which was introduced in 2004, provides a victim-orientated approach and ensures uniformity in crime-reporting practices throughout Scotland. Compliance with the standard is reviewed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland. That is why we are working closely with the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland to ensure that published Police Scotland management information is always robust.
I thank the First Minister for his response, but he will know that, this week, senior police officers have spoken out against a target culture in the centralised Police Scotland. What assurance can he give us that techniques such as gaming are not being used to present a picture of police activity and recorded crime that is less than accurate?
I can give Murdo Fraser the assurance that, because of what I have said to him, we can have confidence in the statistics that Police Scotland produces and, indeed, in the statistics that the former forces produced.
Given the excellence of those statistics, perhaps Murdo Fraser might just accept that there are more than 1,000 extra police officers on the streets of Scotland, whereas thousands have been made redundant south of the border; that recorded crime is at a 39-year low; and that police officers throughout the country are doing an excellent job on behalf of the people of Scotland.
I do not want to comment on the trials and tribulations of Conservative Party Cabinet ministers, but there is a fundamental breakdown in trust between the UK Government and the police service, just as there is a fundamental breakdown in trust between the UK Government and the fire service. Has Murdo Fraser ever realised that the reason why that trust is intact in Scotland is that, unlike his colleagues south of the border, we value and regard the work of our uniformed services?