First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00701)
I will be taking forward matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
These are tough times. People across Europe are fearful of what will happen if Greece defaults on its loans and leaves the euro zone. The situation in Spain, Portugal and Italy is also looking increasingly perilous. If Greece leaves the euro, and others may follow, what are the First Minister’s estimates of the impact on the Scottish economy?
It is precisely because of the seriousness of the situation that we have identified Government time next week for a debate on exactly that subject. The Government will contribute our thoughts on the matter and I am sure that the Labour Party and other parties will contribute as well. Clearly, it is a very serious situation and there are potentially substantial implications for the United Kingdom and for the Scottish economy.
It would have been good if the First Minister could have shared some of his thoughts now, since that was the question that I asked him.
The last time that our banking sector hit crisis, a Labour Government immediately rescued our banks so that ordinary families in this country could still get money out of the cashpoints. That included Scottish banks, of course. There was no question, no hesitation and no negotiation. It was the kind of action that the Greeks and the Irish can only dream of. Our banking system was saved by one of the most successful economic unions in history—the United Kingdom.
Is not the real lesson of the euro crisis that you cannot share a currency and have monetary union without a fiscal union and a political union?
I gently remind Johann Lamont that the governor of the Bank of England, who was in office during the period that she talks about, published last week the most devastating assessment of the delay and dithering. In fact, he accused the last Government and its lack of action of being responsible for the depth of the recession.
If that is what the governor of the Bank of England, who was in office when Alistair Darling was chancellor and Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, says, I do not think that I have to add to that by pointing out that Labour’s absolute responsibility for the depth of the recession is clear on the record and cannot be escaped by any member of the Labour Party.
Johann Lamont says that a monetary union must inevitably carry with it a fiscal union. There are two totally different situations. In the case of the euro, we are talking about a situation in which the productivity rate of Greece is about 40 per cent below that of Germany. That creates huge difficulties and tensions within the euro area.
It would be better at this juncture if people came forward with positive ideas as to how to give opportunities and hope to the people of Greece within that euro area, rather than merely carping from the sidelines, which seems to be what the United Kingdom Government is doing. To be absolutely frank, I have not heard anything from Ed Balls that is a substantial argument as to how the euro zone can be maintained in its current condition.
I hope that, when we come to the debate next Wednesday, Johann Lamont will come with not just a bit of remembrance of the past and Labour’s absolute responsibility for the mess that the economy was in, but also some positive ideas for the future.
This is the man who said that the problem with the banking system was that it was overregulated. We also note that he refuses to confront the logic of his own position that the Bank of England would be the lender of last resort for a Scotland that was outside the United Kingdom.
People in this country and throughout Europe are looking for certainty and stability in an uncertain world. The First Minister used to say that we needed a Scottish pound because interest rates set in London were bad for Scotland, yet now that is what he advocates. He used to say that we would join the euro because the pound was failing. Now, louder than William Hague ever did, he is saying, “Keep the pound.” You know, consistency is a wonderful thing.
Is not the real reason why the First Minister keeps changing the economic case for leaving the UK that he cannot find one that adds up?
When I heard the words “consistency is a wonderful thing”, the three words “council tax freeze” came to mind as far as the Labour Party is concerned.
The former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, argued in a speech that there should be no-touch regulation of the financial sector. He actually argued that position. The Labour Party was in favour of adopting the euro, and it was going to have a referendum to consolidate that position when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. Lectures from the Labour Party on economic consistency with regard to the euro area absolutely take the biscuit in this chamber.
It will substantially assist the Scottish economy if we have fiscal control—that is, if we control Scotland’s taxes and resources and have the ability to manage our economy on that basis. Independence will give us that strong position and there seems to be no other option available that could offer a strong position. I would have thought, despite Alistair Darling wanting cuts that were tougher and deeper than Margaret Thatcher’s, that there would now be agreement between the Scottish National Party and the Labour Party that direct capital spending is necessary to revive our economy. We have articulated that case with our Labour colleagues in the Government of Wales to try to convince the chancellor in London that that is the right mechanism to use right now to revive the economy. Would it not be better if we as a Parliament could just decide to get on and do that with independence, instead of having to go cap in hand to UK Tory chancellors? [Applause.]
Order.
Instead of the First Minister giving us his greatest hits in lines of not answering the question, he should take responsibility and reflect on what is happening in Europe now and the consequences that that will have for Scotland. We have all heard that the First Minister is planning a big day out at the pictures tomorrow. For many of us, the cinema is a form of escapism, but evidently, for the First Minister, his economics are escapism. Europe is facing the greatest economic crisis since the depression, but instead of looking up E for “Economists” in his address book, he is looking up C for “Celebrities”. I suppose that that makes a change from dialling M for Murdoch. [Interruption.] This is a serious business.
Order.
Like people across Europe, Scots fear what will happen to them if the euro zone collapses, but the First Minister’s message to them is, “Turn off the news and put down the paper. There is nothing to worry about.” I think that we know now what will be showing at the multiplex in Fountainbridge tomorrow: “Alex in Wonderland”. [Interruption.]
Order.
I hope that by the time that Johann Lamont gets to the debate next Wednesday, which has been called in Government time so that the Parliament can seriously address a serious issue, she will have something more to say than she has managed this afternoon.
The economy is a huge and abiding concern for the Government. That is why we are working daily to bring jobs to Scotland. We take some satisfaction from recent employment figures in Scotland rising and the unemployment figures falling, but we are not complacent about that. That is why we are calling for direct investment in shovel-ready projects around Scotland and why we are making the case for having control over the fiscal levers of the economy, which can come only with independence.
The idea that we are the only party that is planning and getting arrangements made for a constitutional debate seems to me to be rather wide of the mark. I read in The Mail on Sunday—it was the first time that I had read that newspaper—that
“Senior aides to David Cameron took part in a secret all-party ‘council of war’ at former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling’s Edinburgh home ... The six men spent three hours discussing their battle plans at the meeting held a month ago at Mr Darling’s home in the Abbotsford Park area that has become their unofficial HQ.
Fortified by tea and sandwiches ... they agreed that the only way to defeat Mr Salmond”—
I think that we get the gist, First Minister. Could you just get to the answer?
That was described as the “Abbotsford accord”. If that is what the no campaign has to offer, the campaign that will be launched tomorrow will be fundamentally successful.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. If the First Minister is looking at what is on at Cineworld tomorrow, I say for his information that “Dark Shadows” and “The Dictator” are playing.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00692)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
Two years ago, the Scottish National Party Government withdrew its commitment to publicly fund the new sick kids hospital in Edinburgh. Yesterday, NHS Lothian confirmed that the project has been delayed yet again—not for the first or second time but for the fifth time. The health secretary approved the plans that promised us a new sick kids that would be completed by early next year. When will the doors open at a new children’s hospital facility in Edinburgh?
The full bouquet of the absurdity of that question comes from the fact that a party in government in London that cuts the direct capital budget by 30 per cent and then calls for direct capital investment has a credibility gap that is as wide as the River Forth.
We are looking at the non-profit-distributing model to build the sick kids hospital. The hospital will be built, but NPD programmes inevitably take time, because of their nature. The commitment from the Government is there.
If the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats wish to see a direct capital investment plan to help the sick kids hospital and other such projects in the national health service, they should restore the money from the capital cuts that the chancellor in London has made.
Those excuses do not work. The Government promised a hospital and the hospital has not been built. I can tell the First Minister that the projected date of completion has now slipped to 2017, but the sad truth is that the chair of NHS Lothian reported yesterday that NHS Lothian is being forced to prepare a plan B, which would keep the hospital at the old site.
I have a personal interest, as I am one of the many thousands of people across Scotland whose lives were saved by the specialist care that they received at the sick kids hospital in Edinburgh. I know how beloved the old Sciennes building is. However, the site’s limitations, the building’s age and its distance from an acute emergency hospital mean that the facility is no longer suitable to provide the world-class care that our children deserve into the future.
Plan B is not good enough. Plan A has slipped five times on the First Minister’s watch. The Government cannot sit on its hands and let the project fall apart, because it is too important. Will the First Minister now show the political leadership that patients and their families expect? Will he make the hospital a political priority and bring to bear all the power that the Government has to get the players round the table, to get the bricks laid, to get the doors open and to get children treated by 2017?
When we have debated capital spending, the Conservative Party has referred to the budget consequentials that have increased the Scottish Government’s budget. I asked officials to prepare figures for the Government’s capital budget with the addition of the consequentials from the last autumn statement and the last budget. In 2010-11, the capital budget—including those consequentials—that was allocated to the Scottish Government was £3.293 billion. In 2014-15, that budget will fall to £2.489 billion, which is a cut of almost 30 per cent. A party that, in government at Westminster, imposes a 30 per cent capital cut and then calls for direct capital investment across the country is guilty of the most overwhelming hypocrisy.
The alternative to keeping our commitments to the people of Scotland—which I say that we shall keep, as another ex-patient of the sick kids hospital in Edinburgh—is to go for non-profit-distributing funding. The securing of non-profit-distributing funding inevitably takes time, but it shall be done.
The capital programme in the national health service in Scotland is infinitely superior to what is happening south of the border. Just occasionally, Ruth Davidson and her colleagues should take a glance at the decimation of the national health service in England, which will never happen as long as we are in government in Scotland.
The First Minister will be aware of the plight of Mr Ken Maitland, from Aberdeen, who suffered from dementia and died earlier this month. His wife revealed last weekend that he had had 106 different carers in one year. Sadly, that is not the only case in which a multitude of different carers have trooped in and out of someone’s home.
In 2009, the Scottish Government made dementia a national priority and drew up a charter of rights for people with dementia and their carers in Scotland. Standards of care for people with dementia include the statement:
“I have the right to be regarded as a unique individual and to be treated with dignity and respect”.
Does the First Minister agree that Mr Maitland’s care package failed to ensure that he was treated with dignity and respect and that something has gone badly wrong in the way in which home care is provided? Will he instruct his health secretary to take stock of the situation throughout Scotland and issue new, stricter guidelines, which ensure that councils and care agencies provide proper, person-centred care plans, with a focus on continuity of care?
I heard Mrs Maitland articulate her case on the radio and I thought that she did so with great dignity, under the circumstances. Clearly the situation that her husband faced was completely unsatisfactory.
I disagree with Alison McInnes. It is not a case of publishing new guidelines; it is much more a case of looking to two things: first, the integration of health and social care, which should help enormously in the management of home care cases; and secondly, the bill that we are about to pass, which will entrench patients’ rights in the rule of law and give people options to command their own care packages. I would look for the integration of health and social care and the legislative basis for action to protect patients, rather than just for the issuing of guidelines.
The First Minister will be aware of the recent announcement that 90 job losses are planned at the ClydeUnion Pumps plant in my constituency. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with ClydeUnion Pumps about the job losses? Former owner Jim McColl, when he sold the company, said that he thought that new owners SPX
“would be a good responsible owner of this business and would continue to support its growth”,
and that he wanted to
“see the ... employees go on and prosper”.
Does the First Minister agree that, given the plant’s 125-year history in the community of Cathcart, new owners SPX should seriously consider Jim McColl’s wishes?
I share the member’s concern about the announcement by SPX that around 90 jobs will be lost at ClydeUnion Pumps in Cathcart, and about the impact that that will have on the affected employees and their families.
I can confirm that we acted immediately to provide assistance through the partnership action for continuing employment initiative. On Tuesday this week the Glasgow PACE team met the company to discuss support for employees who might face redundancy. I assure the member that PACE will provide as much support as possible to the employees, to minimise the time that individuals are affected by redundancy and are out of work.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00697)
We will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The First Minister will have seen the open letter from 40 leading figures that calls for a Scottish public inquiry into the Lockerbie prosecution. The group made it clear that it wants a Scottish inquiry, whether or not there is an appeal.
The Scottish Government’s Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission identified six grounds for appeal, including the conduct of the Crown Office, withheld evidence and doubt about identification.
The First Minister has said that he would be prepared to co-operate with a United Kingdom inquiry. If he has no objection in principle to an inquiry, will he agree to hold the Scottish inquiry that the group wants?
The place where an individual’s guilt or innocence is determined is a court of law. As Willie Rennie should know, the relatives of Mr al-Megrahi have the ability, if they so choose, to go back to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and seek further leave to appeal. That is the process that can be followed. The Parliament would do well to take the view that a court of law is not just the best place but the only place to determine guilt or innocence.
Willie Rennie described the SCCRC’s report. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is part and parcel of the Scottish judicial system. It exists to provide checks and balances in the system. It is right and proper for the SCCRC to refer cases back to the court of appeal, if it thinks that there is reason to do so. That does not automatically mean that cases will be successful on appeal—we should look at the record to see that.
Mr Rennie should in fairness note that, now that we have the full detail of the SCCRC report—as he knows, I campaigned for years to have it published—we can see that the forensic trail that led to Malta and Libya was upheld in the SCCRC’s exhaustive review. That is not always clear in the reporting about the report.
This is not just about guilt or innocence; it is also about the conduct of the Crown Office. Surely, a liberal society should be prepared to look hard at its justice system, even if it is worried about what it might find. Whether or not that is determined surely cannot be left in the hands of a family somewhere in Tripoli. If the First Minister chose to act on the inquiry, he would have the support of Desmond Tutu, Terry Waite, John Pilger and many others.
This is not a normal case; it is Scotland’s biggest terrorist atrocity. These are serious questions that have been raised by serious people, and the world is watching. Will the First Minister act?
I have no axe to grind as far as the Crown Office of 10 years ago is concerned. This Government was not in office then. There is no reason for me to be unreasonably protective of law officers, the Lord Advocate and members of the Crown Office from that time. However, the basis on which we must proceed is to see whether the appeals are exhausted within the system. It is not something that we can shrug aside and say that it should not be up to the family of Mr al-Megrahi whether they want to go back to the SCCRC. That is the process of Scots law. That is what the SCCRC is there to do.
Given the exhaustive nature of the SCCRC report, the evidence that it compiled and the witness statements that it took over a period of years, we have every reason to suppose that it will do its job properly, as it clearly has done before.
I ask Mr Rennie to remember that the SCCRC is part and parcel of our judicial system. It is not something that is outside the judicial system. The SCCRC is part of the judicial system.
The people whom Mr Rennie cited genuinely believe that Mr al-Megrahi was innocent. That is why they are arguing that case. The place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law. Other people who want an inquiry into Lockerbie are not looking for an inquiry into the points in the SCCRC report; they are looking for an inquiry into the ultimate responsibility for Lockerbie. That touches on matters of huge international import, and it would be beyond the ability of a Scottish inquiry to summon witnesses and compel evidence and so on in that context. That is why we have said, clearly, that we would co-operate with any such inquiry. However, if an application to determine the guilt or innocence of Mr al-Megrahi comes forward, that is a matter for the SCCRC, which is an independent body, and that is the process by which things can be properly pursued.
Economy (Euro Zone Impact)
4. To ask the First Minister what impact the continuing uncertainty in the euro zone is having on the Scottish economy. (S4F-00690)
I think it is important to recognise that employment in Scotland is rising and unemployment falling—both at a faster rate than across the United Kingdom as a whole.
This week’s Bank of Scotland labour market barometer showed the 18th month of improvement in the Scottish labour market, which was a highly satisfactory finding.
However, as we have said many times, the recovery remains fragile and action is required to boost growth and create job opportunities. With around 45 per cent of Scottish international exports destined for European markets, an end to the on-going uncertainty and a strong recovery in Europe is important for not just the Scottish economy, but the global economic recovery.
The UK coalition Government, which controls macroeconomic policy, has now matched the previous Labour Government by leading the UK back into recession. Although continuing euro zone uncertainty has impacted on Scotland and the UK, does the First Minister agree that the fact that the UK is in double-dip recession and has the worst economic performance since the recession of any G20 country excluding Italy is clear evidence of the negative impact of UK economic policies? Will the First Minister again call on the coalition Government to abandon its austerity-at-all-costs approach, lest its actions continue to jeopardise Scottish economic recovery, and does he agree with former Bank of England officials, Howard Davies and Marian Bell, who said:
“The markets recognize that if the economy turns out weaker than expected and you try to compensate for that by tightening even further, then that way madness lies”?
Yes, I agree with that. It is important to recognise that, when even the International Monetary Fund is calling for an alternative approach to combat recession, it is high time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised the role of direct capital investment in stimulating the economy.
As members in the chamber know, I have made that case many times, but I am pleased to see that there are at least some converts to the cause. Even if Labour members here do not recognise their absolute responsibility for the current plight of the economy, they may have noticed last week the comments from Nick Pearce, who was Gordon Brown’s head of policy at number 10. He called for a major capital investment programme, while admitting in the same quote:
“That cut, by the way, was a decision of the last Labour government which the Coalition inherited—so to register this ... is not to make partisan points”.
Oh, that we could have such admission and honesty from the Labour members in this Parliament.
It may be time for a supplementary question that the First Minister has not seen in advance.
Given the substantial implications for the Scottish economy, can the First Minister tell us how many times his Council of Economic Advisers has met since the euro zone crisis reared its head again a few weeks ago, and when it is next scheduled to meet?
The Council of Economic Advisers has met twice since the election. It meets three times a year and provides on-going substantial advice on substantive routes forward, and it is comprised of some of the greatest economists in the world.
I say to Gavin Brown that I would not need notice to answer his questions.
Lockerbie Bombing (Criminal Investigation)
5. To ask the First Minister what progress is being made with the criminal investigation of the Lockerbie bombing. (S4F-00693)
As Graeme Pearson—of all people—will know, criminal investigations and prosecutions are conducted independently by the Crown Office and the police.
I am informed that the investigation into the involvement of others with Mr al-Megrahi in the bombing of Pan Am 103 has not been closed—it is a live criminal inquiry—and the Crown is working with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the United States authorities to pursue all available lines of inquiry.
An international letter of request was issued by the Lord Advocate to the new Libyan authorities in February this year to allow the investigation to proceed in Libya. The letter of request details the specific lines of inquiry in which law enforcement officers are interested.
The Lord Advocate travelled to Tripoli in April this year to meet the interim Libyan Prime Minister and the Minister for Justice to discuss and encourage co-operation with Scottish law enforcement officers.
It is a live criminal inquiry, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the investigation. However, I can say to Mr Pearson that we have every confidence and belief that the new Libyan authorities will co-operate fully with the inquiry.
I thank the First Minister for that reply, and note his earlier replies on the matter and his continued declarations of open government. Would he be surprised to know that, following my unanswered questions in the chamber on 29 February, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to request specific facts about his visit to Greenock prison, the meeting between departmental officials and Libyan representatives and his view on a possible conflict of interest in those matters?
In spite of repeated reminders, I had to wait for 70 days, before finally submitting an additional freedom of information request and receiving a refusal of my request within hours. How does the First Minister intend to repair the damage that has been done to Scotland’s reputation for justice and good governance if he cannot demonstrate the accountability of his Government to this Parliament and to members in the chamber?
Graeme Pearson should know—he certainly should have known before he entered the chamber—that all relevant documents were published on the web by the Scottish Government in August 2009, including all the information that could be disclosed.
That is in marked contrast, of course, to the decisions of the Labour Government at Westminster. It was only with the publication of Gus O’Donnell’s report on 7 February 2011 that we found out that United Kingdom Government
“Policy was ... progressively developed that Her Majesty’s Government should do all it could, while respecting devolved competencies, to facilitate an appeal by the Libyans to the Scottish government for Mr Megrahi’s release under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement or for release on compassionate grounds ... Such an approach was understood across all relevant departments.”
While Labour Party members in this chamber were attacking the justice secretary, their colleagues in London were campaigning for Mr al-Megrahi’s release on any grounds.
Ministry of Defence (Radioactive Contamination of Land)
6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is regarding reports that the Ministry of Defence might have sold land in Scotland that was contaminated with radioactive material. (S4F-00712)
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment recently wrote to the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence urging the MOD to make available all necessary information on any such land that might be potentially contaminated to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the agency responsible for regulating such matters in Scotland. We understand that assessments to identify any such contamination at RAF Kinloss and other MOD sites are on-going and it is vital that the MOD co-operates with SEPA to ensure that local communities can be provided with peace of mind as quickly as possible.
Does the First Minister agree that the MOD really must learn the lesson of Dalgety Bay, investigate all current and former sites in Scotland and be free with the information that it discovers for the benefit of our local communities?
Lessons should be learned from the radioactive contamination at Dalgety Bay. Although that contamination was first detected in the early 1990s, it has only been in the past few months that the MOD has taken the necessary steps to begin a full-scale investigation. The fact that it was left to SEPA, rather than the MOD, to identify and remove high-activity particles in Dalgety Bay last year shows that the MOD has been dragging its feet on this issue for far too long and I call on the ministry to carry out its investigations at other sites in Scotland in a prompt, comprehensive and transparent manner and in full co-operation with the regulatory authorities in Scotland and the communities affected. Only by doing so can it regain the confidence and trust of the people in those communities.
That ends First Minister’s question time.
12:31
Meeting suspended.
14:00
On resuming—