First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01907)
Sadly, we had confirmation early this morning that a 62-year-old man fell from Taqa’s Harding platform in the North Sea during maintenance activity. He was transferred to Gilbert Bain hospital but, unfortunately, has passed away. I know that the whole chamber will join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the family, friends and colleagues at this distressing time.
We on this side add our condolences and recognise the importance of ensuring that people who go to work are kept safe when they are there.
Standard Life has made plans to leave Scotland if Scotland leaves the United Kingdom. How many more companies need to leave Scotland before the First Minister admits that a yes vote would be a disaster for Scottish jobs?
Let me quote exactly from the question-and-answer session at the Standard Life annual general meeting today.
“How many people do you employ in Edinburgh/Scotland? What would be the impact on jobs of moving your HQ?
We have made no decisions to move any part of our operations from Scotland at the current time as a consequence of the constitutional debate. We are proud of our Scottish heritage and believe that Scotland is a good place from which to run our business and compete around the world.”
Standard Life then says that it has contingency plans
“if this does not continue to be the case”.
Our submission would be that Standard Life will find Scotland a good place to do business, as it finds the 10 countries around the world in which it does business. That will happen first and foremost because of the excellence of the staff. Its prime asset is the 5,000 people who work for it in Scotland, who are the strength of the company and what has made it successful. Secondly—this matters to some of the points that Standard Life has made—the Scottish Government puts forward the concept of a shared currency and regulatory framework, which are exactly the sort of things that Standard Life has been calling for.
Given that statement about the importance of Scotland as
“a good place from which to run our business and compete around the world”,
can the chamber not unite in having confidence that an independent Scotland—indeed, Scotland under any constitutional framework—will be exactly that?
Only in Alex Salmond’s world is what Standard Life said today represented by what he has just said. A tried and tested path: denial, deception, delusion. [Interruption.]
Ms Lamont, “deception” is not acceptable in the chamber.
It certainly is not. It is not acceptable in real life, either. Standard Life—[Interruption.]
Ms Lamont, it is not acceptable in the chamber. Continue.
Standard Life employs 5,000 people in Scotland. It is worth nearly £250 billion and 90 per cent of its customers are in the rest of the United Kingdom. Now, Standard Life is actively making plans to leave Scotland if the First Minister gets his way. No amount of bluff, bluster and bullying from Alex Salmond can change that fact. Will the First Minister admit that, if Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, people’s jobs will leave Scotland?
Let me get this right for Johann Lamont: the bluff, bluster and bullying apply to George Osborne, who is the Tory chancellor that she is in alliance with; what Standard Life is saying is what I have read out.
Johann Lamont says that she does not believe what I say, but I was reading out exactly from the question-and-answer session at today’s AGM. Standard Life is pointing to the fact that it wants Scotland to be
“a good place from which to run our business and compete around the world”,
as it competes in 10 countries at the moment. We are putting forward the view that Scotland is going to be a good place from which to run business. We can do that because of the propositions that we make, which are that we will have a currency union and a secure regulatory environment. Above all, Standard Life depends on the skills and assets of its staff—they are what make and have made Standard Life a successful company.
The Scottish Government has put forward a viewpoint of what we believe to be in the best interests of Scotland—that is a logical and rational argument. Is Johann Lamont really making the case that Scotland is not going to be a good place to do business? That is what this hangs on. The evidence tells us—and it is substantial evidence—not only that it will be a good place to do business, but that an independent Scotland will be a more competitive place to do business.
It is precisely because Scotland is a good place to do business that we want it to stay strong in the United Kingdom and in the currency union that we have. The First Minister must explain why he wants to change something that works.
Of course, it is not just Standard Life that we are talking about. The Royal Bank of Scotland—the bank that the First Minister used to work for and the bank that he encouraged to do the deal that made it go bust—[Interruption.]
Order.
We have all seen the letter that the First Minister wrote to Fred Goodwin telling him to go ahead with the deal.
The Royal Bank of Scotland has said that uncertainty is damaging its fragile business. Standard Life is planning to leave Scotland, and RBS is shedding Scottish jobs. When the First Minister said that he “didn’t mind” Thatcher’s economics, he really was not kidding. Is it not the case that Alex Salmond’s plans would do more damage to Scotland than even Margaret Thatcher?
Only somebody who believes that Scotland is not “genetically programmed” to make political decisions could possibly come up with that concoction of nonsense. Let us take it apart piece by piece.
First, we have been here before: Standard Life has expressed concerns in the past. In 1992, the managing director of Standard Life wrote to every employee saying that any constitutional change would be damaging for the business and would cost jobs. However, by 1997, it had changed its mind as experience had shown that constitutional change could offer a secure business environment. Johann Lamont should remember that other people have been convinced by experience and evidence that Scotland is genetically programmed to make political decisions.
Johann Lamont mentioned other things. I point out that there has been a range of statements across the financial sector. Ross McEwan stated that the Royal Bank operates in 38 countries and that an independent Scotland would make it 39. Just a few days ago, the Barclays chief executive described independence as a matter for the Scottish people to decide. He said:
“we think we can make it work either way as a bank.”
Martin Gilbert, of Aberdeen Asset Management, said:
“If it did happen, it would be neutral for Scotland’s financial services industry.”
Major figures recognise that the operations of their business in an independent Scotland could be highly successful.
When we were faced with businesses who had concerns and doubts, the answer of those supporting constitutional change was to demonstrate by evidence and experience that Scotland would be more successful. That is what was done in the past; that is what will be done with the independence debate.
The onus is on Johann Lamont to say that she believes that Scotland is capable of making political decisions. If she does not believe that—she seemed to deny that in a debate earlier this week—the whole basis on which we have come so far with this Parliament is being denied. As we have demonstrated our ability to run so many of Scotland’s affairs—better than they have ever been run from Westminster—so, too, will we demonstrate our ability to run our economy and the other great issues for which an independent Scotland would be responsible.
Yet more quotes from the First Minister—somebody must have been up all night googling “Alex Salmond is right.” I just hope that they were paid for that.
The issue is far too serious for the First Minister to debate by making cheap points, including on the significance of what Standard Life is saying. BP has warned that independence will damage Scotland; RBS is being damaged by the uncertainty that Alex Salmond is causing even now; Standard Life is planning to leave Scotland if there is a yes vote; and the workers on the Clyde are warning that there will be no shipbuilding after a yes vote.
The First Minister can selectively quote all that he likes. He can rewrite people’s words and try to mislead the people of Scotland all that he can. However, the reality is that more jobs would go than went at Ravenscraig, more jobs would go than at Bathgate, more jobs than at Linwood. If there is a yes vote, is it not the case that we will need to rewrite the song—[Interruption.] If there is a yes vote, is it not the case that we will need to rewrite the song: “Standard Life no more, RBS no more, shipbuilding no more, the Scotland we love and fight for no more”?
All that, for Alex Salmond, is a price worth paying. [Applause.]
Order.
Does Johann Lamont not recall that what she has just quoted—Bathgate, Linwood, Lochaber no more—were put out by the no campaign in 1979, a campaign that she supported because she was against devolution? Scotland did not get a Parliament, and guess what happened? Bathgate, Linwood and Lochaber all closed.
Of course, if Johann Lamont had not supported the no campaign in 1979, she could have said that that was all Tory scaremongering, but now we are saying that it was not just Tory scaremongering, because Johann Lamont was a no voter in 1979. She agrees with the tactics that Scotland has grown out of over the past 20 years. We have seen through the scaremongering. If we had not seen through it, we would not now have this Parliament.
I say to Johann Lamont that Scotland will go on to prosperity and more equality through independence. It will not be “our business no more”; it will be “Labour no more”. [Applause.]
I call question 2—[Interruption.] Order.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. I add our condolences to those from the whole Parliament to the family of the worker from the Taqa platform who was tragically killed.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01905)
No plans in the near future.
This morning, 5,000 people throughout Scotland woke up to hear that, in the event of a yes vote, their jobs might move south. The chief executive of Standard Life, David Nish, said that he had started to establish companies outside Scotland to operate in the event of independence. The firm stresses that it is not telling people how to vote; it is just making calm and rational preparations for what happens when a country in which it is operating is broken up. Standard Life has just told us its plan B. Why will the First Minister not do the same?
I will read Ruth Davidson something that was written in the past:
“The Scottish life insurance industry has emerged, in recent weeks, as the business sector most publicly tormented by even a hint of home rule. The biggest players, led by Standard Life and Scottish Widows, even resorted to ill-judged letters to staff warning of the grave consequences for jobs of any slippage from the status quo.”
That was written by the commentator Alf Young about the 1992 election campaign. What was the worst thing about that aspect of the campaign? It was the Conservative Party, which was exploiting the fears of business and trying to translate them into opposition to constitutional change in Scotland. However, by 1997, people had seen through that tactic.
I have read what Standard Life actually said today. It said that it wants security in having a competitive business environment—I have read it out to the Parliament—and that Scotland would be
“a good place from which to run our business and compete around the world”
in the 10 countries and jurisdictions in which Standard Life currently operates.
From the position of the Scottish Conservatives, cannot Ruth Davidson express the confidence that we can create that good competitive place to do business, so that our highly successful companies can grow their staff in an independent Scotland?
The First Minister does not understand that when David Nish tells people how independence would adversely affect his business, and when the Royal Bank of Scotland says that independence would hurt its credit rating, that is not a conspiracy. When BP says that independence would threaten its business and when Asda says that independence would put up prices, that is not a conspiracy. When the austerity-hating, Nobel prize winning left-wing economist Paul Krugman says that a currency union without shared Government would be “very dangerous”, that is not a conspiracy. When the Canadian central banker Mark Carney says that it is necessary to give up sovereignty to have a currency union, that is not a conspiracy.
However much the First Minister might like to protest, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his opposite numbers and the permanent secretary to the Treasury say that a currency union with a foreign country would not be in the interests of the rest of the UK, that is not a conspiracy, either.
Yes it is.
Order.
People explaining how independence would affect them, the country, their business and their customers is vital to the debate, and the Scottish National Party should not dismiss those voices or shout them down.
Standard Life has said that jobs could go in an independent Scotland if it is not given clarity on five major issues. What can the First Minister tell the company’s employees today that he could not tell them yesterday?
I make it quite clear—so that there is no room for misunderstanding—that there is no conspiracy among the range of people and companies that Ruth Davidson mentioned; the conspiracy is the work of the Conservative Party and the other scaremongers who want deliberately to misrepresent what is being said. The classic example is the comments of the poor governor of the Bank of England—who made a judicious speech in Edinburgh a few weeks ago—being incorporated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s political statements against monetary union.
I have already read out what the chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland said. I heard him on the radio this morning, and what he said is a million miles from Ruth Davidson’s attempted incorporation of his comments in her political argument. He did not say what she suggests. What else has been said is on the record.
Perhaps we should follow investment to tell us what is actually going on. I noticed from last week’s papers that
“Standard Life Investments is reported to have agreed a £75 million joint venture acquisition and development deal”
with Peveril Securities for a site in St Andrew Square in Edinburgh. Standard Life Investments described the deal as
“a first-class long-term investment for our partners.”
That is what is going on in the Scottish economy. The chancellor’s attempts to undermine confidence, which go back to 2011, have failed, as will Ruth Davidson’s.
Ruth Davidson asks who supports our proposition for a currency union. A huge range of people do, including Jim McColl, Tony Banks, Dan MacDonald, Sandy Adam, Martin McAdam and Ivan McKee—key businesspeople who signed a letter to The Scotsman. In “Future Scotland: Macroeconomic and Fiscal Sustainability”, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry said:
“The UK is an optimal currency zone and a sterling union would minimise economic disruption.”
Dr Jim Walker and the banking and business finance partner of Tods Murray, Rod MacLeod, support our proposal. A range of people do. Above all, the Scottish people do—by a significant majority, they think that our proposal is right.
Can I think of anyone else who supports our idea for a currency union? Jackson Carlaw does. Not only is he a supporter of it, but he will be “manning the barricades” in support of it. I love giving Ruth Davidson the benefit of the doubt; I am sure that, when Jackson is on the barricades, Ruth and I will be standing there right alongside him.
The First Minister will be aware that, last week, in response to investigations by Education Scotland inspectors and the Care Inspectorate, it was announced that the independent Hamilton school and nursery in Aberdeen would close immediately. This week, primary pupils started attending classes at Braeside, but following the Hamilton school and nursery’s closure, future provision for pre-school children remains in doubt. Will the First Minister update us on progress? Will he undertake to ensure that everything possible is done to find a place for the nursery children and to minimise disruption to families at this difficult time?
I thank Alison McInnes for her question. She knows that Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government are working together closely on the issue. As of last night, more than 50 places had already been secured for the nursery children. I know that because—as Alison McInnes understands—Government ministers were faced with the reports that they were faced with, there was no reasonable alternative to the action that was taken with Hamilton school.
Alison McInnes has my assurance that we will continue to work closely with Aberdeen City Council to ensure minimum disruption. A rapid and effective response was made for the primary school children; we will seek minimum disruption for the nursery children, too. The closure of Hamilton school has affected the children, their families and the staff. Everyone is doing their utmost to ensure minimum disruption and—as with all decisions that have been made on the issue—to ensure that the children’s welfare is uppermost in everyone’s minds.
Welfare Reform (Food Banks)
3. To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government is providing to food banks in order to help tackle the impact of United Kingdom welfare reforms. (S4F-01908)
In total, we have put in place more than £258 million of funding over the three years from 2013-14 to 2015-16 to mitigate some of the cost and the impact of the UK Government’s welfare changes. That help is aimed at some of the most vulnerable in society and at tackling the worst impact of the cuts. Let us remember that research in December found that food banks believe that the cuts are the root cause of the massive increase in the numbers who are using their services.
We will continue to work with local authorities, third sector partners and others on how best to ensure that those who use food banks have access to appropriate advice and support. I have asked the Poverty Alliance to carry out more research into food poverty in Scotland.
In the week when Scotland’s largest food bank ran out of food, does the First Minister agree with the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rev Lorna Hood, who said, “This is not right”? Is it not an affront to the dignity of tens of thousands of our fellow human beings that they are forced to rely on such services? Is it not shameful that the only thing that prevents children from going to bed hungry is the charity and good will of others? Is it not the measure of a just society that we resolve to tackle and eradicate the poverty that exists in Scotland?
I agree. Any politician who visits and supports a food bank is caught in the horns of a dilemma of two minds. There is admiration for the solidarity that is shown by those who work in food banks and volunteer to help their fellow citizens in a time of extremity. However, there is also the clear understanding, which is shared by food bank volunteers, that it is disgraceful that we are seeing in 21st century Scotland the spread of the necessity to help our fellow citizens who are in distress. Both those aspects should be taken forward in policy—the solidarity, which helps people, and the determination to eliminate the necessity for people to rely on food banks in 21st century Scotland.
I could not agree more with the First Minister. He will be aware that referrals have been made to food banks instead of grants being made available from the Scottish welfare fund, over which he has control. That is happening when the welfare fund is substantially underspent—only a third of it was spent in its first six months of operation. Last week, the minister projected an underspend of millions. Will the First Minister consider an urgent review to ensure that the welfare fund better supports those who are in crisis, which would negate some of the need for food banks?
It is under review. When I visited an Edinburgh food bank a few weeks ago, people said exactly that the review and the co-operation with local authorities are enabling better provision under the welfare fund.
Jackie Baillie has often said that the welfare fund is undersubscribed, but it is clear that the series of mitigation measures that the Scottish Government and local authorities have put in place will not be undersubscribed. New mitigation schemes have been set up and the reality is that more and more is being claimed from them as time goes on.
Another reality that Jackie Baillie will face at some stage is that, even with the best will in the world and with the £258 million of mitigation measures, we cannot cope with the full extent of the welfare cuts that are being borne down on many sections of Scottish society. Given that reality, she will at some stage have to reconsider her incredible position not that Scotland could not run welfare provision, but that it should not run welfare provision. The reality is that it must run welfare provision.
Rape (Increase in Reported Incidents)
4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the recent increase in reported incidents of rape. (S4F-01916)
There are many troubling aspects. We know that a high proportion of rapes are never reported to the police. The increase in reported incidents may in part be because victims have more confidence in the police and are therefore more willing to come forward and report crime.
What is more, Police Scotland has made tackling rape a key priority for the new service. The Crown Office has improved the way in which it handles rape, with the creation of the national sexual crimes unit—a team of specialist prosecutors to ensure that these cases are given the best available consideration and preparation.
Whatever the reasons for the increase in recorded incidents, given the current constraints on public finance, can the First Minister advise what funding is available from the Scottish Government to ensure that agencies that assist alleged rape victims are properly financed and resourced?
There are now 14 Scottish rape crisis network centres located throughout Scotland. They will receive funding from the Scottish Government of £700,000 each year during 2012 to 2015. Rape Crisis Scotland will receive £244,000 of Scottish Government funding a year, which will enable a strategic approach to tackling rape and sexual assault, and will also support the 14 rape crisis centres. We are also providing for a rape advocacy pilot. That grant will be for a rape crisis advocacy service, which supports victims through their contact with the criminal justice system. We are supporting the rape crisis helpline, which will receive £260,000 of Scottish Government funding a year from 2012 to 2015. That helpline offers free and confidential support and information for women and men who have experienced sexual violence.
National Health Service Settlement Agreements (Confidentiality Clauses)
5. To ask the First Minister, in light of the evidence given by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing at the Public Audit Committee on 19 February 2014, how long confidentiality clauses have been included automatically in NHS settlement agreements. (S4F-01917)
Compromise agreements were introduced in 1993 and, while confidentiality clauses have often been used in those agreements, there is no obligation to do so. However, there is understandable concern that the inclusion of a confidentiality clause within the standard template produced by NHS Scotland’s central legal office in 2009 could be encouraging their use.
That is why Alex Neil announced this morning that confidentiality clauses are to be removed from the standard template and health boards told that the presumption must be against their use. Alex Neil has also made it abundantly clear that no clause whatever can ever prevent an NHS employee from raising any concerns that they have on patient safety.
I thank the First Minister for his remarks and for the tenor of his remarks. Is he aware that, according to freedom of information requests that I have lodged, in 2007-08 there were four compromise or settlement arrangements in the NHS in Scotland at a cost of £130,000? That figure has risen every year since—to six, to eight, to 17 and, in 2012, to 110, at a cost of more than £2 million. Last year, the figure was 143, at a cost of £3.5 million. Now that we discover that every one of those, except one apparently, has a confidentiality clause, does the First Minister still maintain, as the health secretary tried to do at the Public Audit Committee, that this is an historical problem, or does he recognise that it is one of his own creation?
Given that Ken Macintosh thanked me for the way in which I responded to his first question, he should accept that the health secretary has consistently said that he is looking at the issue; he trying to find the reasons for the spread of confidentiality clauses, how that can be best sorted in the interests of patient care in Scotland and how we can ensure that all parts of agreements reconcile with the absolute right of an NHS employee to raise any concerns that they have on patient safety.
The Government introduced the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011, which established the confidentiality helpline. Alex Neil announced this very morning at the Royal College of Nursing conference a further move to make it absolutely clear to health boards that confidentiality clauses should be removed from the standard template and that the presumption should be against their use. That seems to me to be a range of measures that demonstrate this Government’s commitment to allowing people within the health service to report their concerns without fear or favour.
Public Access Defibrillators
6. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will ensure that all sectors of sport are equipped to handle cardiac arrests by participants and spectators. (S4F-01906)
Heart disease and the treatment of cardiac arrest remains a clinical priority for NHS Scotland, which wants not just people who participate in sport but everyone to have access to the best possible care as quickly as possible.
Substantial investment in heart disease services has reduced Scotland’s premature death rate from coronary heart disease by 43.6 per cent in the past 10 years. On Monday, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing announced that we are investing £100,000 to increase the number of public-access defibrillators in Scotland. That will benefit sports participants as well as the wider community.
A campaign that is backed by Arrhythmia Alliance, the Professional Golfers Association and PGA European Tour aims to have one defibrillator at each of the 3,000 golf clubs in the United Kingdom and Ireland by the end of 2014. In this exciting year for golf in Scotland, will the Government work with the campaign to persuade every golf club in Scotland to install such a device?
As Chic Brodie knows, this afternoon the Minister for Commonwealth Games and Sport and I will meet Bernard Gallacher to hear more about the campaign to increase access to defibrillators throughout Scotland. Of course, Bernard’s recent experience has highlighted the lifesaving potential of public access to defibrillation. I look forward to learning more about the campaign and I know that all members will welcome the fact that someone is using their adverse personal experience to promote a campaign that can bring great benefits to all the people of Scotland.