Engagements
I am sure that I speak for the whole chamber when I say that my thoughts are with the workers in the North Sea, following the announcement of job losses today by Shell and Taqa. I hope that the First Minister will use the full resources of the Government to ensure that any worker who loses their job gets the support that they need.
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02696)
The thoughts of this Government are always with anybody who faces losing their job. The full resources of the Government are always brought to bear to assist anybody facing redundancy, and they will be in the case of the job losses affecting the North Sea that have been announced this morning.
Later today, I will have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Last week, at First Minister’s question time, Nicola Sturgeon twice denied that her central general election demand for full fiscal autonomy within the United Kingdom included the money from the Barnett formula. Will the First Minister confirm that that is still her position?
My position is that I want this Parliament to have more fiscal and economic powers so that we can grow our economy faster and reduce the deficit that Scotland currently carries.
Last week, I gave figures that certainly conceded that the projections for oil revenues over the period to 2019-20 show a £3 billion reduction. Over that same period, though, we see onshore revenues predicted to rise by £15 billion. That is without having extra powers to grow our economy faster.
There is a straight disagreement between those of us on these benches and those on the Labour benches. We do not want to sit back and accept continued Tory and Labour cuts. We want to have responsibility in Scotland to have an alternative to that, to grow our economy and to get the benefits of economic growth that we can invest in our public services.
That is really interesting because last week, the First Minister said in this chamber:
“The modelling does not simulate continuation of the Barnett formula.”
She later said:
“The Barnett formula was not part of the modelling framework”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2015; c 17-8.]
I am afraid to say that her own Government’s paper says that it is.
The Scottish National Party Government paper published an analysis of what it would mean to lose the money we get from Barnett, but that analysis still includes the benefits of Barnett. The SNP Government’s analysis told Scots that, although the SNP’s general election policy for full fiscal autonomy within the UK means that we can spend in Scotland what we raise in Scotland, we can still benefit from the higher public spending that comes from Barnett and the block grant. That is not true. We know it and she knows it.
I know that the First Minister would not have intentionally tried to mislead Parliament when she suggested that we can have full fiscal autonomy within the UK and keep Barnett money, so I ask her again: can she confirm, beyond all doubt, that the SNP’s plans for full fiscal autonomy within the UK mean the end of the block grant and the end of billions of pounds for our national health service and our schools?
I repeat what I said last week in the chamber: the modelling does not simulate continuation of the Barnett formula.
I know that my position and the position of those of us on these benches is one that Labour disagrees with. It prefers to join the Tories and say that Scotland is not capable of standing on its own two feet, but—[Interruption.]
Order.
I want us, in this Parliament, to have the ability to stand on our own two feet, to take our own decisions and to keep the benefits of the good decisions that we take. I want us to be able to grow our economy and reduce our deficit in that way, rather than have a situation where we continue to be at the mercy of Westminster cuts.
Just a few weeks ago, Labour voted with the Tories for an additional £30 billion of cuts. Last week, we had Ed Balls say that he would reverse nothing in George Osborne’s budget. Well, the SNP takes a different view. We think that there is a better future for Scotland. We put forward, first, an alternative to austerity and, secondly, the notion that Scotland is no better than any other country but we are just as capable of standing on our own two feet, taking good decisions, supporting our public services and stopping the attack on the vulnerable that characterises the two other parties.
It strikes me that, if you want a straight answer from the Scottish National Party, you need to take Alex Salmond out for lunch. [Laughter.]
Order.
The block grant sounds like a piece of dry political theory, but it could not be more important to the future of Scotland, for the sake of our national health service and our schools and for the sake of our pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and deserve to enjoy their retirement in comfort.
The SNP’s economic credibility is in tatters. The impartial Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the SNP’s plans for full fiscal autonomy would cost Scotland £7.6 billion; the experts at the Scottish Parliament say that cutting public spending by billions would cost 138,000 jobs; and Professor Brian Ashcroft says that the SNP Government’s analysis is
“partial at best and dishonest at worst.”
Does the First Minister think that the IFS, the Scottish Parliament information centre and Professor Ashcroft are all wrong?
Interestingly, at the weekend, the IFS said that it thinks that a future Labour Government could sign up to the SNP’s anti-austerity programme and still meet its fiscal targets, which begs the question why Labour prefers the ideological austerity of the Tories to joining with the SNP in an alternative to austerity.
I know that Labour’s position is that the best way to protect Scotland’s finances is to continue to allow Westminster Governments, including Tory Governments, to run those finances, but the experience of that for Scotland over the past few years has not been a particularly good one, because the Westminster Government has cut the budget of the Scottish Government by 10 per cent in real terms.
If that is what Kezia Dugdale and Labour want to defend, as well as the additional £12 billion of cuts for Scotland that are coming down the track from Westminster, let them do that. I suspect that their poll ratings will continue to plummet as a result. For my part, I will continue to argue that there is a clear alternative to austerity and to argue for this Parliament to have the power that we need to grow our economy faster, protect the vulnerable and invest in our public services.
If Kezia Dugdale wants that to be the dividing line between Labour and the SNP over the next seven weeks of the election campaign, I say: be my guest. I relish that.
It is this First Minister who is arguing for an additional £7.6 billion-worth of cuts to Scottish public services and who admitted last week that she had got it wrong on oil. Her numbers were out by billions, and today’s announcement of job losses in the North Sea shows the impact of the plummeting oil prices on workers and public spending.
Last week, the First Minister said that she would publish a revised oil and gas bulletin as soon as possible. However, in a letter to me this week, she failed to commit to publishing the facts before the general election.
There we have it: an economic paper torn apart by the experts; a general election plan based on fiddled figures; and oil numbers that the First Minister is hiding from the Scottish people. It is clear that, when the numbers do not add up, this First Minister makes them up anyway.
Is this really the SNP’s economic strategy? Perhaps I should ask Alex Salmond, as he is clearly the one who is calling the shots. [Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the First Minister. [Interruption.] Order. I think that we are getting just a bit excited. It is the Parliament down the road that is in recess, not this one.
We are seeing an inverse relationship between how low Labour’s poll ratings go and how loud its noise in the chamber gets. It is desperate stuff from a dying Scottish Labour Party.
This Government and the party that I lead will continue to argue an alternative to the Tory-Labour austerity. We have a Labour Party here that trumpets an anti-austerity motion that it tabled a couple of weeks ago in the House of Commons that calls for spending cuts. How can Labour be anti-austerity when it is calling for additional spending cuts?
There we have it: the clear choice that confronts people at the election in just a few weeks’ time is that they can vote for Labour and more Tory spending cuts, or they can vote SNP for a clear, consistent and principled alternative to austerity. I suspect that I know which way it will go.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02701)
I am expecting to see the Prime Minister next week in the party leaders’ debate, which I am very much looking forward to—unless, of course, he gets cold feet again.
I imagine that in all the debates, including the Scottish ones, the people who are taking part are probably looking forward to it more than the audience and the voters, but there we go.
We have just heard a rather fraught exchange—[Interruption.]
Order.
Well, I am looking forward to it.
We have just heard an interesting exchange, yet the First Minister is still no closer to admitting how much full fiscal autonomy would cost Scotland. We all know how much it would have cost last year because the Scottish Government published figures on that two weeks ago. There would have been a £4 billion black hole.
We are going into an election with the Scottish National Party arguing for fiscal autonomy as its stated aim without any official price tag having been put on its policy. The First Minister recently set up a Scottish Fiscal Commission of eminent economists to advise the Scottish Government. Will she instruct it to look at the numbers and, before the voters of Scotland cast their ballots in May, tell them how much fiscal autonomy would cost the country over the next five years?
John Swinney has today published a consultation on putting the Fiscal Commission on a statutory basis, because we want to ensure that, as we move forward and, I hope, take more responsibility in this Parliament, we have the best advice available to us.
The choice that people must make is very clear. We know what will happen over the next Parliament if we continue to allow Westminster to run our finances: an additional £12 billion-worth of cuts will come to Scotland. I do not stand here and pretend that this would solve all our issues overnight, but if we can take more control over our own finances and fiscal decisions, that would put into our hands the ability to grow our economy and revenues faster. As I said to Kezia Dugdale today and last week, our onshore revenues are projected to be £15 billion higher by 2019-20 than they are today—and that is before we have the additional powers to grow our economy faster.
The dividing line between those of us on these benches and, it seems, all the Westminster parties is clear. They want us to be at the mercy of Westminster cuts, unable to do anything about them and unable to defend ourselves. I do not want that. I want us to be able to defend ourselves from that by having more power in our own hands.
I have just asked the First Minister a serious question. I am disappointed that she chose to dodge it in the manner in which she did. This is about how we fund every school, hospital and police officer. The people of Scotland have a right to know what they are being asked to vote for in fiscal autonomy.
We have the not First Minister—not in the chamber but swanning around the television studios of London telling anyone who will listen how he will be running the whole of the United Kingdom, making statements on tax, welfare, defence and spending. However, the current First Minister standing here is unable even to say how she would fund Scotland’s public services. When will the Scottish National Party branch office rein in its foreign office?
It is clear that my predecessor as First Minister is frightening the life out of the Tories and the Labour Party. Long may it continue. [Interruption.]
Order.
Scotland’s fiscal position was set out in the “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures that were published a couple of weeks ago. The United Kingdom is deeply in deficit and deeply in debt. The difference between Ruth Davidson, Kezia Dugdale and me is this: I do not think that we should simply sit back and accept the inevitability of continued deficits and continued austerity cuts. I think that we should take control and do something about that.
I do not want to see the vulnerable public services and the poorest in our society continue to be affected by the cuts that David Cameron and George Osborne—and, indeed, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls—have planned for people in Scotland. I want us to take control of more of our own finances in Scotland so that we can do something about it. In the meantime, I also want to argue for—and prevail in the argument for—an anti-austerity alternative. The SNP is the only party standing in this election on that clear platform.
The announcement that 100 jobs are to be lost at Taqa and 250 jobs at Shell is a great blow to the north-east of Scotland and my heart goes out to the people affected. Can the First Minister assure me that the energy jobs task force and partnership action for continuing employment teams will do all that they can to find alternative employment for those affected? Will she and her ministers continue to lobby the UK Government to introduce an exploration credit to boost the oil industry?
As I said earlier, my thoughts are very much with the people who are affected by those announcements. This will be a very difficult and worrying time for them and their families. I know that the PACE teams and the energy jobs task force are working hard to mitigate the impacts of job losses. The energy jobs task force is overseeing significant activity, including a major PACE event that was held yesterday at Pittodrie, which was attended by more than 850 people. The jobs task force met for the third time on Monday this week.
Although we welcomed the progress that was announced for the sector in last week’s budget, it was disappointing that our proposal for an exploration credit was not taken forward, so we will continue to work with industry to press the UK Government to ensure that the fiscal regime adequately incentivises exploration and, of course, we will continue to work to support all those who are affected by job losses.
The First Minister will be aware that NHS Lanarkshire agreed yesterday to renew contracts for the delivery of soft facilities management services such as cleaning at Hairmyres and Wishaw hospitals, despite pressure from unions for a public sector-led bid. The First Minister will also be aware that the then health secretary, Alex Neil, initiated a deep-dive review of the Hairmyres private finance initiative contract last year following a disappointing Healthcare Environment Inspectorate report, saying that he did not believe that the contract represented value for money.
Can we get a question, Ms McCulloch?
Does the Government now believe that the contract represents value for money? Is that why an in-house bid has been ruled out? Also, in the interests of transparency, will the findings of the review be published for all to see?
That gives a whole new meaning to the term “brass neck”. [Interruption.]
Order.
I know that Margaret McCulloch was not in the Parliament in previous sessions, but we are in the situation that she has just outlined in regard to NHS Lanarkshire because of the constraints of the PFI contracts for Hairmyres and Wishaw, which were signed by the last Labour Administration. For Labour to stand up and complain about that is deeply hypocritical. The hypocrisy is staggering. When I was health secretary, I made it clear that, going forward, soft facilities were not to be contracted out. My successor wrote to NHS Lanarkshire making clear that it should take every opportunity to look at bringing the services at those two hospitals back in-house. For Labour, which signed those dreadful contracts, to stand up and criticise the SNP for having to deal with the consequences of them is staggering and is one of the many reasons why people have lost patience with the Labour Party.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02697)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Under the First Minister’s Government’s centralisation of the police, Fife’s control room closed last week. Calls are now handled at Bilston Glen, but there are problems. Earlier this month, more than 1,000 calls were dropped in just one day and non-emergency calls took 40 minutes to get an answer. I have now been told that a dozen of the hugely pressurised staff there have been off sick and that it can take 58 minutes for a call to be answered. Did the First Minister know that that was happening?
The changeover period has been extended, but I undertake to discuss the particular issues and concerns that Willie Rennie raises with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Police Scotland. People have a right to get a high-quality service from the police and where, for any reason, it falls short we will ensure that action is taken to rectify that.
On the more general issue, I know that there is an in-principle disagreement between my Government and Willie Rennie over whether amalgamating Scotland’s eight police forces was the right or wrong thing to do. We did it and we did it for the right reasons. We wanted less resource to be taken up by chief constables and all of the things that go with that rank and for the resource to be invested instead in the front line. That is one of the reasons why we are maintaining 1,000 extra cops on Scotland’s streets, helping to keep crime low.
The closure of the Dumfries control room last year was described as “shambolic”. The Stirling control room was closed but, only weeks later, had to reopen in an emergency. The closures in Aberdeen and Inverness are still to come. I am alarmed that the First Minister seems to be unaware of the problems because, earlier this month, there was almost a critical incident because staffing levels were so low. Will she call a halt today to further closures while she gets a grip at Bilston Glen?
I have already said that the issues that Willie Rennie raises deserve to be treated seriously—I do not deny that for a second—and I will discuss them directly with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Police Scotland. As I said, the changeover period is being extended.
The police carry out user satisfaction surveys to ensure that, where there are failings in the service that they provide to people, they can act on them. Public satisfaction with our police remains very high, but it is essential that we work with our police and support them to provide the level of service that the public throughout Scotland have a right to expect. I, as First Minister, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will do everything that we can to support Police Scotland in doing that.
Penrose Inquiry
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the final report of the Penrose inquiry. (S4F-02695)
As First Minister of Scotland, and on behalf of the Government of Scotland and the national health service, I take the opportunity to say a sincere and heartfelt sorry to everyone who has had to deal with the devastating impact of infected NHS blood and blood products.
I cannot begin to understand the difficulties and many hardships that individuals and their families have had to contend with. It is important that we apologise to them openly and without reservation and I do so on behalf of the Government of Scotland and the NHS.
I established the Penrose inquiry because I felt that it was vital that we understand the series of events that led to such a devastating impact on so many people. Now, as First Minister, I am determined that we do everything possible to give all of those who are affected the support that they deserve.
The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport will make a full statement this afternoon setting out the Government’s response to the inquiry’s findings. I am sure that I speak for everyone in the chamber and throughout Scotland when I say that we must do everything in our power to ensure that such terrible events never ever happen again.
I note that, as she said, the First Minister was responsible for commissioning the inquiry as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. As she will be aware, some of those who are impacted by the report have called it a whitewash. What steps will the Government take to support those families and ensure time for a debate in the chamber to discuss those views and the inquiry in general?
I can obviously understand the feelings, frustration and, even, disappointment of all of those who are affected by the dreadful events. However, I was struck particularly by comments that Bill Wright of Haemophilia Scotland made yesterday. I thought that he was correct in his assessment that, despite his disappointment,
“there is a narrative setting out the case that cannot be avoided by the government and its moral responsibility.”
On behalf of the Scottish Government, I certainly accept that responsibility.
I make it very clear that we regard the publication of the report as the start of a process of further engagement with those who are affected rather than an end to the investigations into the tragic events. Taking account of the wider findings of the report, and in consultation with patients and families, we will act to implement the report’s recommendation and take forward the review of financial support as a matter of urgency. We recognise that direct payments are only part of the support package for those affected. Therefore, we will also implement pilots on increased psychological and social work support with a view to putting in place a national service, and we will provide further funding to Haemophilia Scotland and the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, which provide a valuable peer support, mentoring and advice function.
In opposition, I campaigned for justice for all those affected by infected blood and infected blood products. As Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, I set up the Penrose inquiry. Now that I am First Minister, I am absolutely determined that we do everything that we can to deliver justice and support to those who have suffered so much.
Zero-hours Contracts
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to end the use of zero-hours contracts. (S4F-02698)
We condemn totally the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. Unfair work practices such as that are unacceptable. They undermine our ambitions to grow our economy and to tackle inequalities in our society.
The Scottish Government and its agencies aim to set an example by not directly employing anyone on a zero-hours contract. Although the issue is reserved to Westminster, we will use all the levers at our disposal to tackle any abuse. Through public contracts Scotland guidelines and our programme for government commitments to establish a fair work convention and introduce a Scottish business pledge, we are looking to encourage all employers across Scotland to adopt fair working practices.
More than 100,000 Scots are trapped on zero-hours contracts. They are used in our national health service and our universities and by councils and companies that are engaged on public sector contracts across Scotland. Those are all areas that are under the Scottish Government’s control or in which it has significant influence. If that influence was used properly, it could change people’s working lives for the better.
The First Minister can take her responsibilities seriously and act on zero-hours contracts here, or she can shrug her shoulders and blame someone else—anyone else. Which is it to be?
I do not think that I was blaming anyone else in anything that I said in my opening answer. I made the factual point that these matters are reserved to Westminster. I also made it absolutely clear that we would use all the levers under our control to tackle this practice.
As First Minister, such is the importance that I attach to ensuring that people in work have fair employment conditions—that includes the payment of the living wage and not having the inappropriate or abusive use of zero-hours contracts—I appointed a cabinet secretary to be in charge of fair work.
We will continue to make all the efforts that we can to crack down on the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. Instead of trying to divide ourselves on this issue, on which I think we substantially agree, perhaps Labour and the Scottish National Party should join forces, back the efforts that this Government is making and call on the present UK Government and whatever one is elected at the election to take even tougher action at Westminster level.
“Constitutional implications of the Government’s draft Scotland clauses”
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, “Constitutional implications of the Government’s draft Scotland clauses”. (S4F-02707)
The Scottish Government welcomes some of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s conclusions, especially the conclusion on the need for amendments to strengthen the clause concerning the Sewel convention. It is notable that the United Kingdom Parliament committee concludes that some of the draft clauses
“address matters of very significant constitutional importance in a less than satisfactory manner.”
I have previously set out this Government’s concern over other clauses, in particular the veto in the clauses that relate to removing the bedroom tax or changing welfare. I very much hope that the next UK Government will pay more attention to those concerns than the current one has done.
Smith was, of course, charged with implementing the vow. I am sure that the First Minister will agree that any UK Government needs to deliver Smith both in law and in spirit.
Smith recommended devolution of the work programme and the work choice programme at the end of the current contracts. Those contracts have now been extended to 2017. Can the First Minister advise the chamber whether the UK Government has agreed to the requests that have been made for it to reverse that decision, which goes totally against the spirit of the vow?
Scottish ministers have consistently and repeatedly called on the UK Government to cancel the renewed contracts for the work programme and the work choice programme. Those programmes to support jobseekers, including disabled people, into employment were specifically identified by the Smith commission as being among the employability support services that should be devolved to Scotland on expiry of the current contracts.
The UK Government wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training yesterday to again refuse our request. That wilful, persistent and continuing refusal calls into question the UK Government’s intention to deliver the vow. I repeat the call for the immediate transfer of powers and resources that will enable us as a Parliament to better support those who are unemployed in Scotland into work.
Presumably the First Minister agrees with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that the UK Government has shown urgency in producing the draft clauses and in the process of bringing more powers.
Last week, she apologised for getting her oil figures wrong. Will she now apologise for her Administration’s denigration of the further powers process and for the accusations of insincerity that were made before the referendum last year?
I accept two things. First, the draft clauses were published to timetable, as I think I said at the time. Secondly, I have welcomed the Smith proposals and the draft legislative clauses as far as they go, and I repeat that readily today. However, I do not think that they go far enough—indeed, in some respects, I do not believe that the legislative clauses translate the Smith commission’s intention.
What I have just said about the work programme is one way in which the current UK Government is going against the spirit—and, I would argue, the letter—of the Smith commission’s proposals.
I will end by quoting again the committee’s report, in which it states that some of the draft clauses
“address matters of very significant constitutional importance in a less than satisfactory manner.”
I agree with that, but I hope that the next UK Government—whatever colour it might be—can be persuaded to respond to some of those points in a more constructive and positive manner than the current UK Government has done.
Previous
General Question Time