First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01134)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Last week, the First Minister told the BBC’s “Today” programme:
“we’re going into talks with President Barroso and the European Commission.”
When will those talks take place?
Johann Lamont will have seen the European Commission’s viewpoint, which states that it has not expressed an opinion on a specific situation regarding Scotland. So, according to the European Commission, all the stuff that we heard before Christmas was not about Scotland at all.
However, the European Commission offered a route forward. It said that, if the member state wanted to ask for an opinion, that opinion could be provided. We have made it clear to the United Kingdom Government that we could go jointly to the European Commission and find out, with interest, what its viewpoint is. That seems to me to be an entirely reasonable suggestion. Perhaps Johann Lamont will depart from her colleagues in the coalition Government and support the Scottish Government’s positive suggestion.
I think that we can work out that the First Minister did not answer the question. Putting aside what he is asked and talking about something else might be an interesting thing to do, but it is not what he is supposed to do in this chamber.
The First Minister said that he was going into talks with President Barroso. Since he made that assertion before the Deputy First Minister had even received a reply to her letter asking for talks, what was the basis on which the First Minister said that he was going into talks with the European Commission? Was it the same basis on which he said that he had legal advice when he did not—that is, he just made it up?
The basis was that we asked for talks with the European Commission on what seemed to be the viewpoint that it stated in December and which was widely reported, which applied to the case of Scotland. The European Commission has now replied saying that it said no such thing and was not talking about a specific case. However, I think that it would be useful for the European Commission’s viewpoint to be heard. I want to hear its opinion. That is why the Deputy First Minister has indicated that we will go jointly, with the UK Government, if it agrees, to find out what the European Commission thinks.
Of course, since December, we have had some other important opinions on this matter from people such as Sir David Edward, a former judge in the European Court of Justice and, only this week, from Professor David Scheffer. Professor Scheffer seemed to profoundly support the Scottish Government’s viewpoint, which we have stated many times, that we will negotiate our position from within the European Union, and stated his opinion that there should be two successor states with equal status with regard to each other.
Those profound and important legal opinions tend to give weight to the Scottish Government’s point of view. I am sure that Johann Lamont has read and understood them and will want to take account of them as we pursue this debate.
Johann Lamont rose—
It would be interesting—if Johann Lamont would give me a second—to have an indication from the Labour Party—[Interruption.]
Order.
It would be interesting to have an indication from the Labour Party of whether it, along with its colleagues in the Tories, is heading towards the exit door of the European Union.
Forgive me for not allowing the First Minister his sound bite before moving on.
Although President Barroso has not spoken about the specific issue of Scotland, he has said that current treaties do not apply to a new state. I can only assume that, although the First Minister has trimmed on the monarchy, the currency and the regulation of the banks, he still thinks that an independent Scotland would be a new state. He can correct me if I am wrong in that regard.
Of course, President Barroso has said that he cannot comment on Scotland’s application to join the European Union, but the Czech foreign minister has done so. The Czech Republic will have a veto on an independent Scotland’s EU application, and Karel Schwarzenberg, the Czech foreign minister, has said that Scotland
“would have to apply for ... membership”
and went on to say that it would get “a worse deal” because
“a much smaller country with much lesser economical importance has less weight”.
Why is the Czech foreign minister scaremongering like that?
Actually, Scotland is approximately the same geographical size as the Czech Republic.
I have the comments from the Czech foreign minister in front of me. When he was specifically asked whether he would want to block Scotland’s entry into the EU, he said no. Even the Czech foreign minister, speaking before he realised that the UK is heading for the exit door under Cameron’s leadership, thought that he would not want to stop Scotland’s membership of the EU. He does not want to stop Scotland’s being a member of the EU, so why is the Labour Party seeming to cast some doubt on it?
The events of the past 24 hours are very interesting in this debate, are they not? They indicate that the threat to Scotland’s continued membership of the European Union comes not from this Parliament, this Government or the people of Scotland but from the banks of the Thames with a Tory coalition Government that is heading towards the exit door and a Labour Opposition that has still to clarify what on earth it thinks about it.
I know that it is the First Minister’s stock-in-trade to miss the point, but the Czech foreign minister’s point is not about whether the Czechs would block Scotland but the price that they would extract for Scotland’s membership of the European Union.
The fact of the matter is that Alex Salmond and David Cameron are like peas in a pod. They will always put—[Interruption.]
Order.
They will always put—[Interruption.]
Order!
They will always put—[Interruption.]
Order!
They will always put their parties’ interest before the interests of the people of this country.
There is nothing quite so negative as trying to mislead the country, which is perhaps why support for independence is at its lowest since devolution. Perhaps the people who hear the First Minister say that he has legal advice when he does not do not believe him any more; maybe the pensioner lying on a trolley in a freezing corridor does not believe him when the First Minister says that he is doing a great job with the national health service; and maybe when the First Minister says that he is doing everything he can to create jobs and then goes on a half-million pound trip to the golf, people do not believe him.
The reality is that Alex Salmond cheered the Tories into Downing Street. [Interruption.]
Order!
He sees Tory welfare cuts as an opportunity for his party and celebrates Tory mistakes on Europe. In fact, is it not the case that he loves the Tories so much that he has taken—[Interruption.]
Order!
Let me try it again so he definitely hears it.
In fact, is it not the case that he loves the Tories so much that he has taken support for independence down to Tory levels of popularity?
I think that Johann Lamont should try it many times in order to get it right. I am not the one who is hand in glove with the Conservative Party in the better together campaign.
Amid all that fluff and nonsense, there was a serious point about the national health service. I want to make it clear that it is not acceptable in the NHS for any patient, let alone an 84-year-old man from Glasgow, to wait eight hours. However, I point out that the NHS conducts 1.5 million accident and emergency admissions in a year; indeed, the figure has gone up about 6 per cent over the past few years. I have been looking back at the figures, because not all of those admissions are conducted in the manner that we would like them to be. That is inevitable in any human-led organisation.
That said, one can measure whether the health service is improving or not. The facts are that when we took office, 90.3 per cent of patients in September 2006 waited less than four hours in accident and emergency across the national health service, while in September 2012, 95 per cent of patients waited less than four hours. Those are facts about improvement in the health service, which must be driven forward to ensure that we do not have individual cases of 84-year-olds waiting eight hours.
I have dealt with Johann Lamont’s alliance with the Conservative Party. [Interruption.] If those on the Labour benches do not like it, they should not be hand in glove with the better together campaign.
The point about the European Commission is not that it says that it is not going to comment on the Scottish situation; it says that it has not commented, but it allows the opportunity for the member state to find out its opinion. I would like to hear the European Commission’s opinion, which is why the Deputy First Minister has indicated that we are willing to do that in a joint submission. Unfortunately, Johann Lamont’s allies in the Conservative Party, and for that matter in the Liberal party, do not seem to have any enthusiasm for that. I wonder why. Is it because the proposition from the unionist parties that somehow energy-rich, fish-rich and renewables-rich Scotland would not be welcomed with open arms into the European Union is absolutely incredible? In contrast to the anti-European attitudes that prevail in the House of Commons, many people across the continent would welcome a pro-European Scotland into the community of nations.
I call Johann Lamont again, because I expect any member in the chamber to be allowed to be heard when they ask their question.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have two brief points. The SNP’s position on Europe seems to have changed from, “Of course we would be a member,” to, “Why wouldn’t we be a member?” We need certainty.
On the health service, it is not good enough for a First Minister to come here and say that everything is fantastic or for policy to shift and be driven by a newspaper and a journalist raising questions. [Interruption.]
Order.
It is about time that the First Minister got his health minister to ensure that the NHS is safe, rather than simply responding to scandal stories that have to get into the papers for action to be taken.
The record will show that I never said anything of the sort; on the contrary, I pointed out that there were 1.5 million admissions to accident and emergency and that, as with any human-led organisation, some people will not be treated as we would like. That is not acceptable. I specifically made the point that it is not acceptable for an old person to wait that length of time on a trolley in a Glasgow hospital or anywhere across the national health service.
The point that Johann Lamont did not like is that, through the statistics, we can see the improvement in accident and emergency in the national health service. If it is unacceptable now for anybody to be in that position—as I say it is—was it not more unacceptable in 2006, when the Labour Party was in power and many thousands more people were in that position in the national health service? A national health service that deals with 7 million treatments in a year, 1.5 million of which are in accident and emergency, should be seen as a health service and its workers performing in the interest of the nation.
I have one last point about accident and emergency: thank goodness that the Ayr and Monklands accident and emergency units are still open and have not been closed, as the Labour Party would have done.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01132)
I have no plans to do so in the near future.
Despite the First Minister’s protestations, there is clear blue water between us and Labour on many things, not just Europe. The difference is that we are sound on Europe and the Labour Party is not; we would give Scotland a say and the Labour Party would not—and nor would the First Minister, it seems. Why is that? When the research shows that twice as many Scots want a Euro referendum than want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, why in his Scotland would he not give them their say?
I am delighted that there seems to be an implicit acceptance that the independence cause will win the referendum and put forward a position. The reason why the SNP advocates that position is that we do not want to leave the European Union. Therefore, we do not argue for a referendum on that case. The Conservative Party’s extraordinary position is that David Cameron says that he wants to stay in the European Union—indeed, when he talks to other European leaders, he says that he is the great reformer who is going to save Europe—but when he is running scared from his Eurosceptic back benchers, he says that it is an in-out referendum. The interesting point is that the negotiations will take five years. Where is the urgency to have the European referendum that there was to have the Scottish referendum? [Interruption.]
Order.
If the negotiations fail, will Ruth Davidson line up to campaign against the European Union, or did David Cameron not bother to consult her before he made his speech yesterday?
I saw his speech both this week and last.
The difference is that the Prime Minister is ready to negotiate a better deal for the UK and that European leaders such as Angela Merkel are lining up to sit down with him for talks, whereas this First Minister cannot get through the door in Brussels for a simple meeting.
I am grateful to the First Minister, because this week something has become crystal clear. If people vote to stay in the UK, they will have a chance of a say on Europe, whereas if people vote for independence, the First Minister is telling them that they should pipe down and leave it to him.
From yesterday’s Scottish social attitudes survey, we all know which way Scotland is going. We also know that the First Minister is old enough to have had his say on Europe—decades ago—[Interruption.]
Order.
No one in Scotland under 55, however, has ever had their say on Europe and, in this First Minister’s world, they never will. The First Minister needs to explain to them why he would deny them their say. Can he explain? Why does he not trust them?
I will take Ruth Davidson through this. In her first question she seemed to imply that she was at least admitting the possibility and perhaps even accepting that yes, I was going to win the referendum. In her second question she seems to have conceded the first elections for an independent Scottish Parliament.
In May 2016, Ruth Davidson and her party, if they so wish, can go to the Scottish people on the platform of heading towards the exit door of the European Union and they can have the exactly the same position as David Cameron will have in 2015. Implied in her question was the acceptance that somehow Ruth Davidson has come to the conclusion that, even under her dynamic leadership, the Conservative party will not be threatening too many polling stations with victory in 2016.
The circumstances of the past few days have fundamentally changed the independence debate in Scotland. The negative, scaremongering, better together Labour-Tory campaign has rested on the assumption that uncertainty would be created about Scotland’s position in Europe. It is now obvious to any reasonable person that the uncertainty about Scotland’s position in Europe comes from the Conservative Party, which is led by the nose by Eurosceptics, and the compromises that David Cameron has had to make to hold on to his job.
I doubt very much that the Scottish situation—never mind the Scottish Conservative Party—was any part of the Prime Minister’s calculations. That is why Scotland is safer with independence as a European nation.
Hugh Henry has a brief constituency supplementary question.
On Monday night there was a major fire at a recycling plant in Johnstone, next to residential properties in the town centre. Some local residents were evacuated and rail services to Ayrshire were halted.
Will the First Minister consider a review of legislation to ensure that such operations are not located in such public areas and will he ask his minister to come to Johnstone to meet me and relevant agencies to discuss a way forward?
I am certain that Keith Brown and the Deputy First Minister would be happy to arrange a meeting to discuss the matter. A discussion to understand the circumstances is the right way to proceed. A decision should then be made on what action needs to be taken as a result of the meeting.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01141)
We will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The First Minister has been an advocate of the Scottish Parliament for all his political life. I understand why he might not want to give up his ambition of an independent Scotland but, if Scotland votes no, would he engage with other parties on further powers for the Parliament? [Interruption.]
Order.
Nicola Sturgeon has urged us all to work together if Scotland votes yes. Will the First Minister work with us if Scotland votes no?
Willie Rennie’s position is extraordinary. My certain memory of this is that he was desperate to avoid devo max or federalism on the ballot paper in the referendum. I go into the referendum campaigning to win, as does the yes campaign. That is how we see Scotland’s future. I have absolutely no idea, given the Liberal Democrats’ multifaced alliances with the anti-European Tories and the no-further-devolution Labour Party, where on earth the Liberal Democrats now stand.
The First Minister knows that the referendum is about whether Scotland stays part of the United Kingdom. Even his own consultation rejected a second question. I do not quite understand why he is so shy about this. The Liberal Democrats have published our plans for home rule in a federal UK. Reform Scotland has produced devo plus and the Institute for Public Policy Research’s devo more will be out tomorrow.
A consensus on more powers is emerging from all those plans and it seems to be endorsed by members of the public. Will the First Minister at least consider working with me and others on a new constitutional future if Scotland votes no? His deputy wants partnership. That is reasonable. Why does not he?
I accept one thing. The Scottish social attitudes survey shows strong support for the Scottish Parliament increasing its powers. It also shows strong support for the Scottish Parliament having full powers and majority support for the Scottish Parliament controlling matters such as social security, which I do not think has even featured in any of the Liberal Democrats’ proposals.
I find this attitude surprising. The Liberal Democrats were extremely coy and reluctant to have a referendum at all at one point, and then to have anything else on the ballot paper. Now, apparently, we should revisit that in some way or try to rearrange the furniture. I do not see how that is tenable. The Liberal Democrat party would not go into alliance with the Scottish National Party at one point because we wanted a referendum on independence. Now it is in alliance with the Conservative Party, which wants a referendum on Europe.
If the Liberal Democrats are willing to traduce their European principles because they have office in the House of Commons at present, I do not think that many people will regard them as the most reliable allies in the Scottish self-government cause. My proposition to Willie Rennie is this: given that, in the past at least, Liberal Democrats have expressed strong support for Scotland having the strongest possible powers, why does he not desert the Europhobic Conservatives and the no-further Labour Party and come and join the yes campaign? [Applause.] We can then campaign jointly to take the Scottish people into a position of real self-government.
Defence Spending
4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the recent report in The Scotsman that Scotland is receiving less than its population share of defence spending. (S4F-01144)
The freedom of information request on which the article in The Scotsman is based reports that between 2007-08 and 2011-12, Scotland received £1.9 billion less than its population share of Government spending on major European Union-exempt projects.
The Scottish Government’s position is that Scotland’s interests would be best served under independence and if this Parliament could take decisions on such matters, allowing our defence and shipbuilding industries to flourish. I notice that that was backed by Ian Godden, former chairman of defence industry leader ADS, who recently said in evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee:
“Scotland can maintain its position in defence interests because there is an industrial and engineering capability that Scotland has got which makes it attractive.”
The First Minister will be aware that the Ministry of Defence announced earlier this week that up to 5,000 job losses are expected as a result of further Army redundancies. Will the Scottish Government raise that issue with the United Kingdom Government and seek clarity on how Scotland might be affected by those redundancies? Does the First Minister think that instead of wasting billions of pounds on the obscenity of nuclear weapons, the money would be better spent on maintaining the front line?
I do think that, and I think that the Conservative-led Government, which has regarded defence as a major issue in the constitutional debate, should explain why people who have been on the front line, fighting in Afghanistan, will potentially come home to P45s. Most human beings would find that prospect, under the Conservative Party, disgraceful.
On Trident, I also note a correction in The Herald newspaper. It seems that the previous jobs estimates that were quoted were based on double and triple counting.
Given the real redundancies in defence that are happening under the Conservative-led Government—[Interruption.]
Order.
—and the waste of billions of pounds of expenditure on a system of mass destruction, it would be far better if those areas were under Scottish control.
The First Minister will be aware that The Scotsman report did not cover all Ministry of Defence spending in Scotland, including the cost of extensive world-class protection for our oil and gas rigs in the North Sea. Can he tell me how that protection would be provided if Scotland was to leave the UK?
It would be provided by the Scottish conventional defence forces and the advantage would be that we would have conventional forces—[Interruption.]
Order.
We would have conventional forces protecting Scotland’s interests in partnership with our allies, as opposed to wasting billions of pounds on an unwanted, unusable system of weapons of mass destruction that the vast majority of Scottish MPs, and the overwhelming majority of MSPs in this chamber, have voted against.
If Rhoda Grant believes in this Parliament and in the views that have been expressed by many people in the Labour Party, how on earth can she accept a situation in which billions of pounds of expenditure are wasted on Trident, while conventional defence forces are being run down? With the system of public spending cuts that we see across the UK, how can she possibly defend those billions going into weapons of mass destruction? She should look to her conscience and come up with a different answer.
Life Expectancy (Deprived Areas)
5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report suggesting that a boy born in one of the most deprived 10 per cent of areas in Scotland has a life expectancy 14 years below one born in the least deprived areas. (S4F-01148)
The report and the member both make a profound point. I think that health inequalities are a huge priority, as they should be across the chamber.
I draw attention to the fact that, within a report that makes serious reading for us all, there was the welcome confirmation that the child poverty rate in Scotland
“dropped 10 percentage points in the decade to 2011, from 31 per cent to 21 per cent”.
That is still far too high, but it represents a significant measure of improvement.
The First Minister is right that previous Governments—both the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government working together—have been able to lift a third of children out of poverty. The current coalition Government’s policies make that task harder, but they are not excuses for despair.
Does the First Minister agree with the authors of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, who were in Glasgow on Monday and who were straightforward in saying that Scottish ministers already have the powers that are needed to make a real difference to health inequalities? The authors were clear that the poor cannot and should not have to wait for a referendum, so does the First Minister further agree that the young boy described by the JRF authors, and many like him, including in my city of Glasgow, need the Scottish Government’s help now? Can we expect any change in the First Minister’s policies or priorities as a result of the report, which recognises that some initiatives, particularly in public health, help the better off most?
I understand that the Deputy First Minister spoke at the conference. Therefore, we treat the report and its contents seriously. Drew Smith is going to have to come to terms with what is an unavoidable fact: there is no question but that a major determinant of the immediate causes of poverty is what is available in the social security system. That system is run at Westminster at present and, as far as I know and understand, the Labour Party supports it being run from there. [Interruption.]
Order.
The report details the substantial threat to the incomes of families in Scotland from the changes that are going through in social security at the moment. Drew Smith should be aware of the measures that the Scottish Government, supported in this chamber, has taken to try to ameliorate some of the very worst effects of those social security changes. However, would it not be a fantastic position if, instead of embarking on amelioration, we controlled these issues in Scotland and could decide on and dictate policies and could try to turn back the threat to some of the poorest families in our land?
Last week, the Child Poverty Action Group said that the Westminster Government’s policies—and, let us not forget, a welfare reform policy that was started by Labour—would result in a staggering 1 million more children being dragged below the poverty line by 2020. On a simple population share, that means 85,000 Scottish children being pushed into poverty by a Government that we did not vote for. Does the First Minister agree that the only way to protect those children is independence, and that we really are not better together?
I agree that those on the Labour benches who bemoan, and say that they oppose, what the Westminster Government is doing should at some stage come to the conclusion that, if they support the Westminster Government having the power over Scotland in these issues, they are implicated in the decision that that Government takes to reduce people in Scotland to penury.
There is no escaping the fact that, if Labour members want different policies for social protection in Scotland, those policies must be controlled by this Parliament. Perhaps at some stage the Labour Party will catch up with the attitudes reflected in the social attitudes survey and support social security coming under the province and power of this democratic Parliament in Scotland.
Cervical Cancer
6. The First Minister is probably aware that this is cervical cancer awareness week.
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to improve awareness of the screening and symptoms of cervical cancer. (S4F-01130)
As Dennis Robertson has indicated, it is certainly correct that the earlier a cancer is diagnosed, the better the chance of a complete cure.
We know that screening is the best way to detect cervical cancer at its earliest stage, and every woman in Scotland between 20 and 60 is invited to be screened every three years. As well as information on screening, each invitation includes information on the signs and symptoms of the cancer. This week is cervical cancer prevention week. The message from the Government, and I am sure from the whole chamber, is that anyone who experiences those signs and symptoms should see their general practitioner straight away.
I am sure that, like me, the First Minister will congratulate Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust on the awareness that it brings to women throughout the country. However, what co-ordination among the health boards can the First Minister ask for in relation to awareness raising? There has been a decline in the number of women who attend screenings.
Dennis Robertson raises an important point. There is a £30 million detect cancer early programme, which obviously highlights the screening programmes that are available. We also work with NHS boards, including on their responsibility for publicising screening in their areas, and GPs play a pivotal role in highlighting the benefits of screening to their patients. Nationally, the information that we provide through NHS Health Scotland is key to allowing women to make an informed choice.
I would be delighted to arrange a meeting between the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and Dennis Robertson to take forward the issue and to look in particular at the worrying indications that the information is perhaps not getting through to the fullest extent.
That concludes First Minister’s questions. Before we move on to the next item of business, I will allow a short pause to allow members who are not participating in the next debate to leave the chamber, and to allow the public gallery to clear.