First Minister’s Question Time
I am very sad to have to inform members of the passing of our dear friend and colleague Brian Adam this morning.
Our flags are already being flown at half-mast. Parliament will debate a motion of condolence next week, when members will have an opportunity to pay full tribute to Brian. There will also be a book of condolence available after First Minister’s questions today in the black-and-white corridor, and I know that members will wish to add their contribution to it.
Today, however, our thoughts are with Brian’s wife, Dodie, and his family.
Presiding Officer, I thank you for the courteous way in which you have informed the chamber and for the way that you have given us the sad news.
Brian Adam was an exceptional member of the Scottish Parliament. He was one of the absolutely crucial people who did what many thought was impossible in sustaining a minority Government as chief whip, and I was delighted to see him serve as a minister in the Parliament.
Of course, his greatest service was to the people of Aberdeen over a quarter of a century, first as a councillor and then as a member of the Scottish Parliament. I am proud to say that I have known and admired him over that entire period as an outstanding politician, a fine human being and a dear friend.
Our condolences, which I know are shared by every single member in the chamber, go to his wife, Dodie, and their five children—Neil, Jamie, Sarah, David and Alan—at what is obviously, for them, the most difficult time of all.
On behalf of my party, my colleagues here and indeed all those who have served in the Parliament since 1999 but are no longer with us, I say that we are deeply saddened by the news that Brian Adam has passed away. I have always recognised in him a man of strong conviction, decency and profound faith, and a man who cared deeply for his family, his party and his country.
Our thoughts are with those who feel his loss most sorely. I know that this is a very sad day indeed for those here who not only had the privilege of working with him as a colleague, but who loved him as a friend. We share your sadness at the loss of a fine parliamentarian and a fine Scot.
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01315)
I thank Johann Lamont for the way in which she has expressed sympathy to Brian Adam’s family and friends.
Later today, we will carry forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
If Scotland votes yes in the referendum, the first budget for an independent Scotland will be set in 2016. Who would the First Minister prefer to sign it off—Ed Balls, George Osborne or Angela Merkel?
I must not pick the Cabinet in advance, and I must not say in advance of the Scottish people, but if the Scottish people back the Scottish National Party, given the way that things stand just now, that first budget will be set by John Swinney.
We all know that that is not true, given what has been said in the past week. Despite the fact that the Government has deployed the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and, indeed, John Swinney himself, it has been unable to answer the very simple question about the implications for Scotland of being in a sterling zone.
I agree with the First Minister that George Osborne is a slippery, untrustworthy man; I just do not understand why he thinks that that will change after the referendum. I agree that George Osborne’s fiscal and monetary policies are wrong for Scotland and for the whole United Kingdom, but it is Osborne with whom the First Minister will do the deal if he wins the referendum.
That is the difference between Alex Salmond and me. I want to get rid of the Tories and keep the union; he wants to get rid of the union and keep the Tories in charge of the economy.
Can the First Minister explain to me—and perhaps some of his colleagues—why that would be independence?
I point out that somewhere in that question Johann Lamont seemed to concede the first elections to an independent Scottish Parliament. If that is the case, I am absolutely delighted.
The arguments for a sterling area were set out in enormous detail by the fiscal commission some weeks ago. We can point out on the basis of last year’s figures—for example, the £4 billion relative surplus that Scotland had compared with the United Kingdom Treasury—the ample room for manoeuvre. Would that we had the ability now to generate the income that Scotland generated and use it to benefit the people of Scotland. That is the sort of flexibility over taxation and spending that Scotland would have as an independent country.
Johann Lamont is in an unfortunate position in that, even when she proposes an increase in flexibility over fiscal policy by control of income tax, the members of Parliament at Westminster whom she is meant to control describe it as being “dead in the water” and it does not even get discussed at the Scottish Labour conference. Perhaps it is not surprising that she is apparently conceding the first elections to an independent Scottish Parliament. The Labour Party should try harder to unite with its own MPs instead of uniting with George Osborne—that “slippery character”—in the better together campaign.
Well, that felt like an infestation of squirrels, I have to say. We now seem to be in a position where we no longer cry freedom, we cry flexibility—whatever that might mean. The First Minister has yet to answer a simple question about the implications of his choice, with no plan B for the currency. John Swinney told the BBC that Scotland might leave the United Kingdom without paying any debts at all. It seems that while there are some who say that an independent Scotland might end up like Greece, John Swinney wants us to start off like Greece, by defaulting on our debts.
Four weeks ago, I asked the First Minister what his plan B was if we could not agree on a currency union. Like George Osborne, he said that there was no plan B. So, is his strategy to say, “Let us into a currency union or we won’t pay our debts”? If that fails, would not Salmond’s Scotland start off life as an international pariah without a currency?
Our position, as set out in the fiscal commission’s report, is that Scotland is entitled to a proportionate share of the assets of the United Kingdom and of the liabilities of the United Kingdom. That is the responsible position that we have put forward. As Mervyn King said before the committees of the House of Commons, the Bank of England is not just a bank of London; it is the bank of Scotland and the rest of the UK. What John Swinney was pointing out, and it is a realistic point to make, is that if George Osborne says that all of the monetary assets belong to him and the London Government, then by definition—as night follows day if one pursues that argument—so do the liabilities. People may have noticed that George Osborne and Alistair Darling between them have piled up an enormous number of liabilities over the past few years.
Johann Lamont criticises the Conservative Party. Can I just say to her that it is kind of difficult to do that when she is in alliance with the Conservative Party? She cannot say that she does not like what George Osborne is doing to Scotland, then campaign shoulder to shoulder with him in the better together campaign. We are in the remarkable position of having Alistair Darling, the leader of the better together campaign, saying—he said it on Saturday—that we must not believe a single thing that George Osborne says and that nothing that he says has any credibility. George Osborne says about Alistair Darling that anything that he said has no credibility and that politically he is a “dead man walking”. So two people who do not believe in each other’s credibility are the ones who are saying to Scotland what we cannot do.
However, we can be an independent country with control over our resources and taxation, and that will make Scotland much better off than the better together campaign would ever manage.
The First Minister talks about credibility, but he changes his position on the currency more times than I change my shoes. The only consistent thing about his position on the currency is that it is not consistent—he does not say the same thing from one week to another. In addition, the First Minister talks about building up liabilities. Yes, we remember how those liabilities were built up: saving the Royal Bank of Scotland, the bank that the First Minister used to work for.
If the First Minister has no plan B, his position boils down simply to this: “Please, gonnae please, let us be in a currency union,” with no credibility about what he would take into the negotiation.
It is clear from the First Minister’s last response that he does not understand why this matters. He thinks that it is a bit of a game or a bit of a knockabout, but it matters to families worrying about what currency their wages will be paid in and how they will put food on the table. It matters to pensioners, who are entitled to know how their pensions will be paid. It matters to the person who has saved all their life and who now wonders what those savings will be worth if there is a yes vote. It matters to anyone who is paying off a mortgage, anyone with a job and anyone with a business.
What currency we have is a most basic question, and it is astonishing that the First Minister has been unable to answer it. But let us pause. What the First Minister is saying is that he wants a divorce but to keep the joint bank account. Is he not gambling with Scotland’s future on the basis of good will from neighbours we would just have rejected?
When we published the report of the fiscal commission working group, which is an extensive document, we put forward in enormous detail why we think it is in Scotland’s interests to have a sterling area after independence and why it is overwhelmingly in the interests of the rest of the United Kingdom. There are a whole range of points about trade flows between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but probably the most substantial point is the Scottish resources—£58 billion—that would bankroll the sterling area. What on earth would happen to sterling if that was outside the sterling area? Therefore, we are dependent not on good will or munificence, just the obvious, overwhelming economic self-interest of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is perhaps why, when the chancellor was asked four times on “Newsnight” whether he was ruling it out, he refused to do so. Almost simultaneously, Danny Alexander was asked four times on the other programme, and he refused to rule it out.
Johann Lamont says that she does not know the SNP’s position, and I have just set out what the SNP’s position is. What is Labour’s position? Never mind Alistair Darling. On “Newsnight” on 30 May 2012, Ken Macintosh said to Gordon Brewer:
“Remember the five tests for joining the euro?”
Gordon Brewer said:
“Yes, is that still Labour’s—do you still have five tests?”
Ken Macintosh said:
“Five tests to join the Euro? Certainly.”
Maybe Johann Lamont should bring her own finance spokesman into line, never mind the MPs at Westminster.
Then, of course, we have independent adjudication of these matters, so let us turn to David Blanchflower, former member of the monetary policy committee, who was appointed by a Labour Government. This week, he said that there are
“no major obstacles at all to a currency union if both sides acted with an open mind.”
He said that the UK Government has
“just made it up: it’s political more than economic”.
He added:
“It’s certainly pretty likely, given how disastrous George Osborne has been, that if Scotland had had their own fiscal policy, they would’ve done better”.
He also said:
“Osborne lecturing the Scots on economics is like a freshman who failed Economics 101 giving the keynote address to the American Economic Association.”
I agree with David Blanchflower, the eminent economist whom the Labour Party appointed to the monetary policy committee.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. I associate myself and my party with the tributes paid to Brian Adam. Too often, people see only the conflict in this Parliament. They do not see the camaraderie. Brian Adam had friends on all sides of the chamber. He took great pride in serving the people of Aberdeen, first as a councillor and then as a parliamentarian, and he did so with diligence and decency. The thoughts of everybody on this side of the chamber are with his family, his friends and his colleagues at this time.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01313)
I thank Ruth Davidson for her generous tribute, which will be much appreciated by Brian’s family.
I have no plans in the near future.
The First Minister seemed very keen to use quotations just a moment ago. I gently remind him of his own words in November 1999, when he said:
“the pound sterling has been a millstone around Scotland’s neck costing Scotland jobs and prosperity.”
Ten years later, he said:
“we’re in sterling and sterling is sinking like a stone.”
He has also said:
“We cannot allow ourselves to be held back by clinging onto sterling.”
At what point in the First Minister’s political journey did the pound sterling stop being a millstone and start being a life raft?
Ruth Davidson is in alliance with Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was the leader of the pro-euro campaign. When I was a member of Parliament, the Conservative Party was making plans to join the euro, I seem to remember. [Interruption.]
Order.
I do not think that Ken Clarke has ever revoked his support for the euro. Ruth Davidson is also in alliance with Alistair Darling, who was in support of the euro.
I merely point out that the consistent thread of the Scottish National Party—unlike that of the other parties—is that we put forward what is in Scotland’s economic interests. That is the basis of the fiscal commission working group and the basis on which the SNP and the Scottish Government will always act.
The difficulty with the Westminster Government is that more than often—very often—the interests of Scotland are very, very far from the top of its agenda.
It is not like the First Minister to be shy in just telling us that it was when a more fiscally responsible Conservative Government came in, in 2010.
Let us leave aside the bluff, bluster and whatever that answer was supposed to be. The First Minister has already had the United Kingdom chancellor and the former Bank of England experts, Professor Charles Nolan and John Nugée, telling him that it would be unbelievably difficult to secure his preferred choice of a sterling zone. Even the First Minister’s former economic adviser, Professor John Kay, said that he should “expect to fail” in his negotiations. Indeed, politically, his fellow separatists Margo MacDonald, Jim Sillars and Patrick Harvie have all said that independence should mean Scotland having its own currency.
We know that the First Minister is a gambler, we know that he is reckless, but is he honestly telling Scotland that he would enter negotiations with no bargaining position and no back-up plan? [Interruption.]
Order.
Okay, I will ask the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister to tell us what plan B is. Is it to use sterling anyway, as Ecuador uses the US dollar, or is it to have a separate currency, as his economic adviser suggests—the bawbee?
The bargaining position is £50 billion of Scottish assets that underpin the UK economy.
We have a Conservative Party that is celebrating because, over the past six months, UK gross domestic product has flatlined entirely. We have a chancellor who is playing with fire, according to the International Monetary Fund, and has been downgraded by two of the three rating agencies, yet the better together campaign is still delivering leaflets that say, “You’ve got to maintain AAA status by voting for the union.”
With great respect, when we publish a report by a group that includes two Nobel laureates and a professor of economics at Harvard, which sets out in the most enormous detail the arguments for a sterling area, at the very least we expect the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to read it. Danny Alexander refused four times to rule out the idea of a sterling zone; in the middle of that, he said that the arguments had not been put forward. The arguments were put forward in enormous detail in that report.
It is high time that the better together campaign started reading and stopped delivering leaflets that claim an AA status.
Members: An AA status?
Order.
I am anticipating the next report from Moody’s, which will take the status down.
There it is: the downgraded party in Scotland defending the downgraded chancellor. We defend the interests of Scotland in the knowledge that Scottish resources are our bargaining position.
Rob Gibson has a constituency question.
To ask the First Minister what help can be offered to 70 employees who risk losing their jobs following the liquidation this week of the Icetech freezer factory in Caithness after 40 years of production, first under Norfrost and, since 2005, with John G Russell.
I share Rob Gibson’s deep concern over the development at Icetech and the impact on the employees affected, their families and the whole Caithness area.
I confirm that we continue to do everything possible to support the employees through the partnership action for continuing employment initiative. Skills Development Scotland has acted immediately to organise a PACE redundancy support event on Friday 3 May in the Pentland hotel in Thurso. All employees will receive an invitation to that event, at which PACE partnership organisations will be present to supply every support possible to the individuals concerned.
I would be delighted if Rob Gibson would like to meet the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth to discuss those important matters further.
Nurses
3. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on reports that nurses spend around 279,000 hours a week on non-essential paperwork. (S4F-01316)
We are working with health boards and staff representatives—including, of course, the Royal College of Nursing—to ensure that front-line national health service staff can focus on delivering high-quality patient care to drive improvement. That includes work to reduce paperwork requirements, particularly for senior charge nurses, so that we can maximise their role as clinical leaders and guardians of patient safety. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has recognised that the issue is a priority, which the RCN has welcomed.
In the week that nurses warned that the dramatic increase in paperwork was taking them away from direct patient care, the RCN and Unison warn the Scottish Government about unsafe staffing levels, with 27 per cent of nurses saying that staffing levels are rarely or never safe.
Does the First Minister agree that cutting 2,000 nurses from the NHS, thereby reducing their number to the lowest level since the Scottish National Party came to power, is having a negative impact on patient care? Will he therefore agree to look again at workforce planning to reverse the cuts in nurse numbers so that we can provide the best possible patient care?
As the member well knows, we have kept the pledge that we made to protect the NHS’s budget in the 2007 election and again in the 2011 election. That pledge was not made—in the run-up to those elections, at least—by the Labour Party, so we can conclude that the NHS is better funded than it would have been if the Scottish people had voted otherwise.
The statistics that the member gives are not totally accurate. In September 2007, the number of qualified nurses and midwives was 37,549; in September 2006, it was 41,026, whereas it is now 41,745. Jackie Baillie will also be aware that, per 1,000 of population, Scotland has the highest number of qualified nurses of any of the countries in these islands.
We know that there are huge pressures in the NHS—of course there are; how could things be otherwise in the current circumstances? However, as a result of the budget that has been devoted to it and our commitment to patient care, the NHS and the nurses of Scotland are doing an outstanding job.
Scottish Banknotes
4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the recent report by the Treasury regarding Scottish banknotes in an independent Scotland. (S4F-01317)
The United Kingdom Government’s threat to Scottish banknotes is quite simply ridiculous. Its bogus claims completely ignore the fact that the Scottish banknote issue is backed not by the Bank of England, but by balances held on a one-to-one basis at the Bank of England.
I will again quote the former member of the monetary policy committee, Professor Blanchflower, who said that he does not see this issue as a “big problem”, that it is not a “major precedent”, that there is a “great deal of scaremongering”, and that
“there’s not a great deal of economics going into this.”
The Treasury’s economic framework with respect to currency choices, which is known as the optimum currency area, seems to be at variance with the Banking Act 2009, which secures the distinct status of Scottish banknotes.
Does the First Minister agree that, as he has just said, George Osborne’s blundering into this area represents no more than scaremongering? Will he join me in inviting the chancellor to make many more visits to Scotland in the coming months, as that can only increase the prospects of a yes vote in September 2014?
Many people remember the visit that George Osborne paid to Scotland—I think that it was 18 months ago—when he said that the constitutional debate was damaging inward investment. He said that he had thought of some companies that that applied to, although he could not name them. Since then, Scotland has topped the inward investment league over the past two years; its performance has been greater even than London’s in the past year. We have had George Osborne’s scaremongering previously.
On the reaction of the Scottish people, John Wilson is absolutely correct. A Tory chancellor coming to Scotland to talk down the country and tell us what we cannot do is exactly the sort of stimulus that the yes campaign needs. I agree on the issue with James Scott, the former executive director of Scottish Financial Enterprise, who said:
“This bogus assertion by the Treasury should be treated with the contempt it deserves.”
Therefore, I think that we can make an offer to George Osborne: let us pay his bus fare to come to Scotland to sink the no campaign.
Securing the future of Scottish banknotes, or any other favourable terms of a currency union with sterling, might well be possible, and it might even be in Scotland’s and the rest of the UK’s interests, but how can we possibly be in a strong enough position to negotiate those favourable terms if the Government has closed down the other option of a genuinely independent currency?
The fiscal commission put forward what we think is in Scotland’s best interests, and the Scottish Government has responded by accepting its conclusions.
The note issue scaremongering story was particularly extraordinary. The Isle of Man issues sterling notes, backed by balances at the Bank of England, but it is not even in the United Kingdom. The importance of the matter is this: if we can identify beyond any reasonable argument the total scaremongering basis of one of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s canards, it probably follows that Alistair Darling was correct in saying that nothing that George Osborne says has any credibility.
Courts (Scientific Evidence)
5. To ask the First Minister what the implications are for scientific evidence in courts following the appeal court ruling in the Kimberley Hainey case. (S4F-01323)
The member will be aware of the adverse press coverage in relation to the two expert witnesses, Professor Sue Black and Dr Craig Cunningham. It was reported wrongly in some newspapers that the appeal court had referred to those two witnesses in derogatory terms. The member may be aware that the judiciary have issued a statement correcting that interpretation, and I have placed a copy of that statement in the Scottish Parliament information centre.
The reputation of expert witnesses is very important. I know that Professor Sue Black and Dr Craig Cunningham are held in the highest regard. Professor Sue Black has an international reputation, based on her work in Kosovo and around the globe. Forensic anthropology is a very important scientific discipline, which has an important role to play in many criminal cases.
Professor Sue Black said this week that the comments that were made by the appeal court judge in the case took science and the law back 100 years in Scotland. Yesterday’s apology was welcome, but it would be good if we could make some advances towards better understanding between science and the law following the appeal.
Will the First Minister ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to meet representatives of the Law Society of Scotland to consider training for legal diploma students and the wider judiciary? Will he consider adopting for the Scottish courts the English Law Commission’s proposals on expert evidence and the appointment of scientific advisers? Will the First Minister meet me, Professor Sue Black and her colleagues from the scientific community in Scotland to discuss how our legal system could be better served through improved scientific understanding?
The statement made by the judiciary is very important, and full account should be taken of it. That is why I am placing it in SPICe. On the wider issue around criminal procedures and the admissibility of expert evidence, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 contains the procedures for raising concerns about expert evidence by way of preliminary hearings and rulings. It is important that both prosecution and defence have access to the best experts in the field, and that expert evidence can be rigorously tested through the court process. The present system is flexible enough to deliver that.
Given the appeal court’s ruling, it is perfectly in order for the judiciary as a whole to consider what the appeal court has said to determine whether the rules of court need to be altered in any way to give that provision, which is already within the criminal law of Scotland, its full emphasis and importance. If meetings are necessary following the statement from the judiciary, I am sure that the cabinet secretary would be delighted to meet the expert witnesses concerned.
Energy (Tariff Comparison Rate)
6. To ask the First Minister what discussion the Scottish Government has had with or representations it has made to the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets regarding the proposed new tariff comparison rate. (S4F-01314)
The Deputy First Minister responded to Ofgem’s consultation on the retail market review proposals in December. The proposed tariff comparison rate is one of a number of proposals that are aimed at providing clear and simple information for consumers. We recognise that the proposals are a step forward in encouraging and promoting consumer engagement in the market, and we therefore support Ofgem’s work to simplify tariffs. In carrying out that work, Ofgem must make sure that its proposals are effective in ensuring that consumers, particularly those who are vulnerable to fuel poverty, can secure the best energy deal.
Does the First Minister agree that far too many people in energy-rich Scotland still live in fuel poverty and that the public are right to expect effective regulation, so that energy suppliers serve the needs of the people rather than the needs of shareholders?
I agree that energy suppliers must serve the needs of the public. I also agree with Jim Eadie that it is a disgrace that energy and resource-rich Scotland—a country that, as we now know, has made above-average contributions to the United Kingdom Treasury in each of the past 32 years—still has fuel poverty.
Last month, the Scottish Government announced £60 million in funding for local authorities to transform thousands of properties across Scotland, and we made a £32 million extension to the energy assistance package, which will help to secure free installation and heating for more than 300,000 households. Those are steps forward in what is a difficult situation that faces many of our fellow citizens.
That ends First Minister’s question time. I remind members that there is a book of condolence in the black-and-white lobby.