First Minister’s Question Time
As the Parliament agreed yesterday that a member other than Johann Lamont could ask question 1, I call Jackie Baillie to do so.
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01992)
I have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
In the light of Johann Lamont’s absence, I say on the career and life of Tony Benn that he was not just a substantial parliamentarian, but a great campaigner and writer. He will be much missed by his family, obviously, but also by his many friends across the political spectrum. [Applause.]
I thank the First Minister for his generous comments, which sentiments we on this side of the chamber share.
The First Minister and his deputy refused to back Labour’s plans for an energy price freeze to help hard-pressed families to cope with rising bills. Indeed, his Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, said that a price freeze would be “completely unworkable” and would lead to blackouts.
Now that SSE has agreed a price freeze and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets is reviewing how the entire energy industry charges consumers, will the First Minister admit that Labour was right and that he and his ministers were wrong?
Jackie Baillie omitted to mention in her declaration of “We was right” that the Scottish National Party proposed a £70 cut in family energy bills, which is, by definition, rather better than an energy price freeze.
I welcome the monopoly investigation into the energy market. That is a far more sustainable way to look at matters, and to ensure that families are protected than would be the case with the other suggestions that have been made. Such a competition review must look at the entire energy market’s production processes and, in particular, at the recently offered nuclear generation contract and its potential impact on household bills over the next 30 years.
The SNP’s proposals would save companies money and load the cost on to the taxpayers. Labour’s proposals would deliver a higher saving—a saving for ordinary people—instead of increasing the profits of the big six energy companies. That is the difference between the two proposals.
From the beginning of the debate, the First Minister has been on the side of the energy companies rather than on the side of ordinary Scots who are struggling to pay their bills. He has stood shoulder to shoulder with David Cameron and said, “You can’t freeze prices. The market does not need reform.” [Interruption.]
Order.
SNP members make a lot of noise. The big six energy companies have made an obscene £867 million in profits while families struggle. Those profits would be even higher after a yes vote because of the First Minister’s planned corporation tax cuts.
As SSE announces a price freeze and Ofgem announces plans for market reform, I will give the First Minister another chance to answer the question. Will he admit that he was wrong not to back Labour’s proposals?
Even for Jackie Baillie, that “shoulder to shoulder” remark was something—given that it comes the morning after the night before, as just yesterday, Labour MPs marched through the lobby in the House of Commons “shoulder to shoulder” with the Tories. [Applause.]
Order.
I say to Jackie Baillie that, when she is in a better together campaign in which the Labour Party is not just shoulder to shoulder, but hand in glove and umbilically linked to the Conservative Party, it is not the best idea to come to Parliament and accuse others of guilt by association with the Conservative Party. The Labour Party is an extension of the Conservative Party.
To take £70 off household bills might be irrelevant to Jackie Baillie and to the Labour Party, but it will be greatly welcomed by families in Scotland as a substantial proposal.
The review of competition in the electricity market is welcome. It offers the opportunity to fully examine the marketplace. I hope and believe that the Labour Party will see the sense of extending that review to nuclear power and the contract that has been offered to Hinkley Point. I hope that for the very obvious reason that, if it continues to support that contract, which is at double the current wholesale price for electricity, there will be only one direction for electricity bills in the future, and that is upwards. Let us have a review and an examination of competition and the conduct of the big six electricity companies, and of the huge nuclear subsidy that is threatening to overwhelm electricity bill payers in this country.
That answer has demonstrated that it does not matter who asks the questions—the First Minister still does not answer them.
The First Minister is clearly suffering from amnesia, so I remind him that he is at odds with his deputy and his MPs in that he supports a cap on benefits. At least, he told the Sunday Post so.
Of course, the First Minister’s white paper proposes weaker regulation of the energy companies than we have just now. Labour legislated to abolish fuel poverty by 2016, but on his watch, the number of households that are in fuel poverty has reached an all-time high of 900,000. The fuel poverty budget is underspent, and installers are going to the wall. Instead of plans to help those 900,000 households that are struggling to heat their homes, the First Minister plans to make a huge tax cut for the big six companies that are ripping Scottish families off. As ever with the First Minister, big business comes first, and real Scots are at the end of the queue.
For the third time of asking, as SSE freezes prices, and Ofgem announces that it will reform the market, surely even the First Minister has the humility to admit that Labour was right and he was wrong.
It does not matter who is asking the questions because they all read from the same script week after week. We were all waiting with bated breath to see who would be the chosen one; the next leader apparent. There were so many candidates on the back benches. The reason why the Labour Party is in trouble in Scotland is its association with the Conservatives in better together, and its script does not change from week to week.
For the third time, I say that we support the competition review of the electricity industry. It will provide a sustainable way of protecting consumers. We support the £70 reduction in electricity bills that we proposed and which most people would understand is, by definition, rather better than a freeze in electricity prices. We think that that is the right way to proceed.
We also understand that if a couple of companies are offered a contract at Hinkley Point at double the wholesale price of electricity, that means that, under Labour, the direction of electricity bills will be upwards if Labour continues to support nuclear power.
In supporting the monopoly review of the current “big six” structure of the electricity industry, which requires examination, let us reflect on who was the architect of that structure. My goodness me! It was not David Miliband, but Ed Miliband.
We operate in a United Kingdom market. We get one third of the overall UK budget for renewables, despite our population share being one tenth. Independence would remove that. Independence would cost an extra £875 per year for each household to make up the renewables shortfall. That is the price of independence for families that are already struggling to pay their bills.
In all of what he said, I did not hear an apology from the First Minister. When Ed Miliband called for the price freeze six months ago, this Government’s energy spokesperson said:
“never has a measure introduced by the leader of a major political party in the UK received such widespread, utter and total condemnation as being completely unworkable.”—[Official Report, 3 October 2013; c 23271.]
Now that Labour’s policy has been adopted by one of our major energy companies, and now that Ofgem is following Labour’s lead, will the First Minister finally admit that he was wrong and that he has let down families who are struggling with gas and electricity bills—or is “sorry” simply the First Minister’s hardest word?
Everybody—the Conservative Party and SSE—is following Labour’s lead, we are told. Unfortunately, what SSE said yesterday about Labour’s proposals is that they
“would not significantly reduce energy prices or provide energy investors with the long-term certainty they require to invest in the energy infrastructure consumers depend on.”
If Jackie Baillie’s interpretation is that SSE is following Labour’s lead, she has some considerable explaining to do.
On the question of the umbilical link between Labour and the Conservatives—Jackie Baillie’s first point was the “shoulder to shoulder” point—how far does that link go through society? I have here an extract from Argyll & Bute Conservative & Unionist Association’s website, which lists an event of the Cowal Conservatives lunch club. It states:
“Venue: Argyll Hotel ... Secretary: Pamela Bellaby ... Lunch with tea or coffee £10 ... Speaker: Jackie Baillie MSP”—[Interruption.]
Order.
I have heard of being shoulder to shoulder, but I say to the Labour Party, if you sup with the Tories, you should do so with a long spoon.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01987)
No plans in the near future.
Domestic violence is a huge problem that affects all societies, including Scotland. Last year, a disclosure scheme allowing individuals to contact the police to find out whether their partners have a previous history of abuse was piloted across four areas of England and Wales. It has been called Clare’s law, after 36-year-old Clare Wood, who was killed by an ex-partner who had already been jailed twice for violence against women.
In May, the First Minister promised to examine the pilots. In September, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to police officers saying that he would consider supporting Clare’s law in Scotland if the pilots were a success. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of those pilot projects?
As the correspondence from the justice secretary indicated, the matter is indeed under assessment. We will take it seriously—we are taking it seriously.
When we previously discussed this issue, Ruth Davidson was generous enough to indicate her support for the variety of initiatives on tackling domestic violence. We also had an exchange about our disagreement on the general rule of corroboration, which I hope she will reconsider, given the impact that it has on bringing many cases to court—crimes of not just sexual violence but domestic violence are one of the issues in that discussion.
We are considering whether Clare’s law can be extended to Scotland. We will do whatever we can to ensure that people in Scotland—women in Scotland—are as safe as they possibly can be in the home environment and outside the home environment.
I appreciate that the First Minister said that assessments by the Scottish Government are still going on, but I think that it is clear from the results that the four pilots have produced that they were a success. In fact, nearly a third of all applications saw relevant information being disclosed.
From this month, Clare’s law will be rolled out across the whole of England and Wales. It means that women and men who are fearful that their partners might have a history of domestic violence have the right to access vital information that could save them from abuse. That same right would be of benefit to Scotland.
Our police and criminal justice services do a difficult and sensitive job extremely well in dealing with 60,000 cases of domestic abuse in this country every single year. One in five women in Scotland will experience domestic abuse at some stage of their lives, and nearly a third of all people convicted of domestic violence in Scotland have at least one previous domestic abuse conviction.
Those people have done it before and they are doing it now, and women have the right to know. A Scottish Clare’s law would give them that right; it has worked elsewhere and could work here. Will the First Minister please commit to acting now to give people throughout Scotland the rights and protections that they desperately need?
I could go through the range of initiatives that the Government has taken on domestic violence. I will not do that because they are agreed initiatives—ones that are supported by the entire Parliament. They include a range of support to organisations working in the field, which is deeply appreciated. I could read out a range of quotations from those organisations about the support that they have from the justice secretary, the Government and, indeed, across the Parliament.
I said to Ruth Davidson that we were studying the matter. She will recall that, when a similar disclosure idea on sexual offences was put forward some years ago after pilots elsewhere, we introduced a comparable scheme in Scotland. We are always willing to learn lessons from experience that works.
Therefore, when I say to Ruth Davidson that the matter is under active consideration, it is under active consideration. If it can be justified and will improve the position of women in Scotland, then, just as we have introduced the range of measures that I mentioned, we will look at Clare’s law seriously and positively. If it could work and would improve the lot of women, we would introduce it.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01989)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
When I last asked the First Minister about the extensive use of stop and search, including on children under the age of 10, he told me that he was comfortable and satisfied. He said that crime levels justified the action. What evidence does he have that the record low levels of crime, which we have seen throughout the western world, are down to his stop-and-search policy?
The fact that some 20 per cent of the stop and searches yield a result in terms of the underage carrying of alcohol or offensive weapons is a strong indication that the policy has merit.
Secondly, I point Willie Rennie to the sharp decline in the carrying of knives in Scotland and the consequential very substantial fall in the injuries—indeed, serious injuries and worse—caused by the use of knives.
There was a debate a year or two ago about whether we should tackle such matters through the penal code or through police enforcement. Our argument was that one of the critical moves that could be made was the use of police enforcement to make people not only safe but feel safe. I say to Willie Rennie that, looking at the figures, that approach seems to be vindicated by the very encouraging reductions in the carrying and use of knives in Scottish society, something that I know will be welcomed across the chamber.
I am disappointed with the answer because that is the same kind of casual and complacent response that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice gave this week. I will explain why it is a matter that the First Minister should be concerned about.
Aberdeen city youth council passed a motion on Tuesday to express serious concern about the excessive use of stop and search on young people. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has voiced concerns, and those concerns were echoed by the First Minister’s own colleague Sandra White MSP. He has allowed stop and search to increase fourfold on his watch, and he says that he is comfortable and satisfied with that.
I think that the First Minister should be concerned. Protecting people’s freedoms is a matter for him. Will he take any responsibility for it?
I do not think that there was anything casual about the reply that I gave to Willie Rennie. I tell him specifically that crimes of handling offensive weapons are down by 60 per cent since 2006-07. There were 4,000 in 2012-13 compared with 10,110 in 2006-07.
On people’s freedoms, one thing is hugely important: the freedom from the fear that many young people had when they believed—they were wrong, but they still believed it—that their safety would be enhanced by the carrying of knives.
The figures that I have given Willie Rennie—I tell him this in all seriousness—represent real freedom, which is the freedom from fear of being injured or killed as a result of offensive weapons being carried. I hope that Willie Rennie will treat those statistics with the same seriousness that he has asked me to treat his questions.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
4. To ask the First Minister how much money has been seized and reinvested across communities under the proceeds of crime legislation since 2007. (S4F-01996)
There is no doubt that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is having a real impact on how Scotland’s prosecutors and police tackle criminality at every level. Since the legislation was introduced 10 years ago, more than £80 million-worth of assets have been seized. We are not yet at the end of this financial year, but the Solicitor General for Scotland will, as in previous years, announce the final figures in April.
Since cashback for communities began, more than £74 million recovered from the proceeds of crime has been invested or committed throughout Scotland, which has funded 1.2 million activities and opportunities for young people across the country.
It is clear that cashback for communities has benefited the people of Scotland greatly and will continue to do so. However, does the First Minister agree that, if the money from fines paid to the Scottish Court Service were to remain in Scotland, it would give the Scottish Government greater access to funds that could be reinvested across local communities throughout Scotland, including in my constituency of Cathcart, instead of being lost in the maw of the Westminster Treasury?
Obviously, it depends on the amount of fines—which itself depends on a range of variables, such as crime rates and the sentencing policy of the courts—but on the basis of income and transfers from 2009 to 2012, as we have set out in the “Scotland’s Future” white paper, the retention of the full value of Scotland’s fines income would provide approximately £7 million per year in additional income to invest in our communities. That is one of many, many arguments for having control of Scotland’s finances.
I know that the First Minister believes, as I do, in the transformational power of sport and the opportunities that it gives us to help divert young people from crime. Will the First Minister therefore consider ensuring that the communities most blighted by crime are given special consideration when cashback moneys are disbursed?
We will certainly look at any proposals that the member comes forward with. However, I have a long list covering every constituency and area represented by members in the chamber that shows how cashback for communities has benefited many fine projects. I am sure that Patricia Ferguson would not want to argue that any one of the excellent initiatives that have been supported by cashback for communities—I can go through them Labour MSP by Labour MSP and area by area, if they wish—has not been a vital and valuable project. [Interruption.]
Therefore, whatever bickering there might be on the Labour back benches, I know that the cashback for communities initiative has the support of every member in this chamber because it is benefiting the lives and livelihoods of young people across Scotland.
BlackRock Investor Warning
5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government position is on BlackRock’s warning to investors of the risks faced by an independent Scotland. (S4F-01993)
A range of companies—I shall name them, if Iain Gray wishes—has assessed Scotland’s prospects. However, serious analysis of Scotland’s prospects would conclude, I think, that Scotland is a developed European economy and the 14th most prosperous country in the world in terms of gross domestic product per head, and that it offers a serious investment and development opportunity for companies that are willing and able to share in its future. I think that that is what is happening now with record business confidence, lower unemployment figures than the UK, higher employment figures than the UK and business expansion reaching, as we saw in a survey just this week, a record high. I know that Iain Gray welcomes all those things, although he did not forecast them when he was leader of the Labour Party.
There was a time when the First Minister acted on warnings about the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs. Back in 2008 when the Scottish banking sector was threatened, he immediately called an emergency summit to see what could be done, and rightly so. I remember that, when we heard warnings that Scottish shipbuilding jobs were under threat, we went together to Whitehall to argue for those jobs, and we won.
However, the First Minister now has no time for the warnings that tell him what he does not want to hear, not only from BlackRock but from BAE Systems, BP, Shell, the Weir Group, Standard Life and Royal Bank of Scotland—I could go on. All those warnings were met with a casual dismissal.
Can we have a question, Mr Gray?
Is that not because the First Minister is the threat to Scottish jobs that they are all warning about?
All these years away from First Minister’s questions, and Iain Gray’s script hasnae changed at all. If only he had had the opportunity to ask four questions, we could have had the doom and gloom throughout them all.
I will read Iain Gray one quotation that I know he does not like, because I heard him dismiss it on the radio just a couple of days ago. It is from Standard & Poor’s, which stated:
“Even excluding North Sea output and calculating per-capita GDP only by looking at onshore income, Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment.”
Ratings agencies are not known to be the most optimistic people on the face of the planet; some of them are even more pessimistic than Iain Gray. If Standard & Poor’s can bring itself to state that considerable confidence in Scotland’s future, why on earth can the Labour Party not share that confidence?
Does the First Minister agree that the uncertainty that the better together folk crow about could be removed through constructive discussions with Westminster on currency union and many other matters? That would be in everyone’s interest, following Professor Leslie Young’s description of the UK Government’s stance as “entirely a false argument.”
I am glad that Christina McKelvie mentioned Professor Young, because he was also dismissed by Iain Gray on the radio for telling a few inconvenient truths in his analysis of the position of the Treasury and better together.
I note from The Times newspaper this very morning—a paper that is not known to be thirled to the independence cause in Scotland as of late—that it states that a substantial majority of people in Scotland believe that George Osborne is “bluffing” on the currency issue. The headline says:
“Fresh poll piles pressure on Labour as SNP extends its lead.”
What is more interesting is why Labour is in that position of great difficulty. It is not just to do with Labour’s unholy alliance shoulder to shoulder with the Conservative Party; it is that people who talk down this country’s prospects will be rejected by the Scottish people.
Constitutional Convention
6. To ask the First Minister what role a constitutional convention would play in developing a written constitution in an independent Scotland. (S4F-02007)
As set out in “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland”, the first independent Parliament that is elected in May 2016 would be under a duty to establish a constitutional convention. That convention would prepare a permanent written constitution for an independent Scotland through an open, participative and people-led process.
The constitution would be designed by the people of Scotland for the people of Scotland, and having a written constitution would bring us into line with just about every developed democracy, certainly in the European Union and across the Commonwealth of Nations.
I believe that the referendum has the potential to engage and reconnect with many people who have felt disillusioned with and disconnected from politics. They have not been voting, and we have the chance to bring them back into the political process—indeed, that is already happening.
However, there is surely a need to maintain that momentum and to capture that enthusiasm from day 1 after a referendum in order to achieve what Nicola Sturgeon described as
“an inclusive process involving all the people of Scotland”
in all aspects of the transition, including the interim constitution.
Does the First Minister accept that there is a case for a constitutional convention soon after the referendum, both to capture and retain people’s enthusiasm and to allay some of the concerns of others who may not welcome the yes vote that he and I will be glad to welcome?
As Patrick Harvie well knows, we laid out the process that we propose on page 560 of “Scotland’s Future”. The constitutional platform is a concept that has considerable merit, because it will embrace the European convention on human rights across a range of policy areas that an independent Scotland will have to address, not just the areas that are currently devolved. It looks forward to putting a duty on the first Scottish Parliament to engage in exactly the same process that Patrick Harvie has outlined, and I fundamentally agree on the capacity for such a process to engender a revival in society as well as huge enthusiasm, particularly among people who have felt excluded from society.
Of course, Patrick Harvie and I both know that there are substantial international examples of how that has taken place, and he and I will reflect that we are encouraged by that idea as we see the referendum process taking place and many, many people engaging in the political process who have not previously been part of the political dialogue. That augurs well for the effect that a constitutional convention and a participative process with the people will have not just in establishing an independent Scotland, but in the fundamental revival of a people’s democracy.
I am sure that the First Minister would agree that progressive decisions are taken when progressive people make them, rather than simply as a result of things being written down in a constitution.
On the interim constitution, in an answer to a parliamentary question that I asked last year, the Deputy First Minister said that the interim arrangements would be taken forward
“under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament”.—[Official Report, Written Answers, 26 September 2013; S4W-16903.]
Can the First Minister confirm that an interim constitution bill would not be introduced to the Parliament until the people have had their say in September? Will he comment on whether or not it would be appropriate for the Scottish Government simply to use its majority to pass such a bill?
Of course it would not—what we are publishing is a draft for consultation. The answer is contained in “Scotland’s Future”, on page 560, which I know the member has read avidly and knows every word of. When people ask for detail and then find that the answer to the question is contained in the document, I think that they should pay some attention to it.
I agree with Drew Smith that progressive decisions are made politically, but I do not think that he and I think that the decision that was made last night by his colleagues in the Westminster Parliament was progressive. Indeed, it was a regressive decision, shoulder to shoulder with the Conservative Party.