Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, June 27, 2013

Official Report 837KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01498)

I would first like to say a few words of tribute to Peter Fraser who, I say sadly, died last weekend.

Lord Fraser was never a member in this chamber, but he did us significant service in the Holyrood inquiry and, before that, as a distinguished Lord Advocate for Scotland. More recently, he agreed to serve as an independent adviser to the Scottish Government on the “Scottish Ministerial Code”, which was another public service that he performed without fear or favour, or any remuneration whatever. Scottish public life is much poorer for his passing. I know that the thoughts of members across the chamber, colleagues and friends are with his wife, Fiona, and their family at this sad time.

I agree with everything that the First Minister said. I pass on our condolences to the family of Peter Fraser and acknowledge the very significant contribution that he made to public life in Scotland.

John Swinney says that the choice for Scotland is between austerity and independence. Will the First Minister explain how a separate Scotland could possibly have a different economic policy from the rest of the United Kingdom, when the rest of the UK would decide what we could spend, what we could borrow and what our interest and taxation rates would be without any representation at all?

There is a difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy. John Swinney has pointed this out many times, but I will repeat it for Johann Lamont’s benefit: if we take the most recent year for which figures are available, Scotland had a relative surplus of more than £4 billion in comparison with the rest of the UK. That £4 billion—a substantial sum—could have been used in a number of ways; it could have been used to provide more investment in the Scottish economy towards recovery, or it could have been used to enable us to borrow less, which would probably be a good idea. That stronger fiscal position could have worth and benefit for the Scottish people.

The choice between continued austerity and the prospect of mobilising the resources of Scotland is now crystal clear, because in the past few weeks the Labour Party has decided to accept the social welfare policies of the Conservative Party, and last week it decided to accept the economic policies of the Conservative Party. After generations of trying to find any group in Scotland that would support it, the Tory party has finally found an economic ally in the leadership of the Labour Party in Scotland.

Like most of what the First Minister says in this chamber, that is completely ludicrous. This is the man who calls a deficit a “relative surplus”. He says that there is a distinction between fiscal policy and monetary policy, but his own adviser, John Kay, makes the point that, if there was an independent Scotland,

“the rest of the UK would seek extensive fiscal oversight over the management of the Scottish economy and would be unwilling to concede analogous oversight from Scotland over the fiscal and other policies of the UK.”

The First Minister needs to get serious, because the fact of the matter is that he plans even greater austerity in an independent Scotland. [Interruption.] Mike Russell thinks that that is silly, but it is his First Minister’s policy. The First Minister is planning a 3 per cent cut in corporation tax for bankers and big business. In the real world, that will cost us £385 million—which, according to the Scottish Parliament information centre, is equivalent to 7,000 jobs each and every year.

When the First Minister says that he does not like George Osborne’s economics, is not that because he thinks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not gone far enough, as his own plan is to cut taxes deeper than the Tories have done?

I will deal with that. We have already published an analysis on the impact of having a competitive corporation tax policy in Scotland. Such a policy would increase the level of gross domestic product in Scotland by 1.4 per cent, which is a substantial amount, increase employment in Scotland by 27,000 jobs, and increase total tax revenues, because when we enlarge the economy we draw in more taxes across the tax base.

I return to the question of whether the Labour Party is now adopting Tory economic policies wholesale. Johann Lamont seems to deny that—as if it had not happened—but it has been the major development in politics in the past few weeks. The Labour Party high command in London has decided to adopt the Conservative Party’s economic budgetary approach, as has been said by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. I appreciate that Johann Lamont was not consulted on that in advance, but for her not to know about it 10 days after it has happened seems to be totally extraordinary.

Let us be absolutely clear: after trying for a generation to find any significant body of opinion in Scottish society to agree with its policies, the Conservative Party has finally found its true ally in the Labour Party.

Obviously the First Minister does not understand his own policy.

With regard to the First Minister’s great radical policy, members will remember that Professor Joseph Stiglitz—the Nobel laureate and adviser to the First Minister—said:

“Some of you have been told that lowering tax rates on corporations will lead to more investment. The fact is that’s not true. It is just a gift to the corporations increasing inequality in our society.”

For the First Minister, the policy is a pretence and a game, but in the real world his plans involve cutting jobs in the Scottish economy at the very point when we need them more.

Only the First Minister could take £385 million out of the Scottish economy and say that it will not affect anything. The rest of us know that it will have a direct impact on services. He says that, over 20 years, his tax cut for big business would create 1,350 jobs a year and that the economy would grow by a massive 0.07 per cent a year. What will the cost of that be?

We would, over that period, have given bankers and big business a £7.7 billion tax break, which would cost the equivalent of 140,000 jobs. Only in the First Minister’s mind could that possibly be a credible policy. It is the kind of Reaganomics that even the Tories do not believe in.

Is it not the case—[Interruption.] Members should do the sums and work it out.

Is it not the case that Alex Salmond has said that Scots do not mind Margaret Thatcher’s economics, and that he wants to apply her economics to an independent Scotland?

In reply to Johann Lamont’s question, I quote:

“We have cut corporation tax twice and I want to go further. We will reduce the tax again when we are able.”

That was Gordon Brown’s first speech to the Institute of Directors as Prime Minister. I know, of course, that Gordon Brown is only the leader of the Labour no campaign, while his friend and ally Alistair Darling—who, we should remember, wanted cuts that were “deeper and tougher” than those of Margaret Thatcher—is leading the Tory-Labour no campaign.

However, the figures that we have published on corporation tax show that there would be an increase in GDP, a significant increase of 27,000 jobs and an increase in total tax revenues. That is the information that we have presented to the public. If Johann Lamont has a different analysis, she should present that. However, if it is the case, as we have put forward—[Interruption.] We have Johann Lamont asking what the impact will be, but the Scottish Government has published an analysis. If the Labour Party has a different analysis, then let it publish it. However, if it is the case that the policy that we propose will result in an increase in employment, an increase in investment, an increase in GDP and an increase in total tax revenues, then even the Labour Party should think that it is an excellent idea.

On the extraordinary alliance that has developed between the Conservatives and the Labour Party, can I congratulate Johann Lamont on writing the chancellor’s speech? One of his key points yesterday was to bemoan and attack the “something for nothing society”. It is now not just that the Labour Party has adopted the Tories’ policy programme wholesale; the Tories are also adopting Johann Lamont’s language as they seek to persuade people that continued austerity in the United Kingdom economy is worth voting for.

The shift of the Labour Party on to Tory ground is not just a fundamental mistake; it is a lesson for the Scottish people that the unionist parties—Tory-Labour; Labour-Tory—offer nothing but continued austerity. What is offered by an independent Scotland is investment, progress and social justice in this society.

I am proud to say that we, on this side of the chamber, do not agree with the First Minister when he wants to give “something for nothing” to big business at the expense of jobs. I have to say that 27,000 jobs pales into insignificance against the 140,000 jobs that would be lost. If we have a choice between the analysis of the First Minister—given his record with arithmetic—and the analyses of the Scottish Parliament information centre and Professor Stiglitz, I know what side I am on. The First Minister’s choice is one that would be deeply damaging to the people of this country.

The fact is that the First Minister’s credibility is like his European Union advice: he will go to the ends of the earth to protect it, but we all know that it does not exist. The man who backed the plans that broke the Royal Bank of Scotland now asks us to trust an economic vision—[Laughter.] I am glad that Government party members think that it is funny that the First Minister used his office to encourage Fred Goodwin to do precisely that. [Interruption.]

Order! Christine Grahame!

The First Minister is asking us to trust an economic vision that looks more like an hallucination. However, we know that in private the First Minister and his colleagues know that a separate Scotland would have huge economic problems. In private, they even question the affordability of pensions, but they think that in public they can treat the people of Scotland like mugs. [Interruption.] Do they know that in the real world everybody understands that there is a real challenge and that we need to protect ordinary people? The First Minister and his gang behind him—

Members: Oh!

—are too interested in prosecuting a case that they have believed all their political lives to look at the consequences of their proposals for ordinary working people. [Interruption.]

Can we have a little bit of calm, please?

The fact is that all of them—all of them—in public, no matter what they say in private, think that they can treat the people of Scotland like mugs. No promise is too nonsensical and none need be costed. The fact of the matter is, from the First Minister and his Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth down—[Interruption.]

Order! Mr Stevenson!

They say anything, without ever doing the hard job of proving how those things would actually be delivered.

Is not it the case that the First Minister—[Interruption.]

Order!

The First Minister’s back benchers are never going to say this to him, so let me tell him what ordinary people believe. The First Minister must be daft to believe that the people of Scotland might be daft enough to believe his independence plan.

Before Johann Lamont lost the plot entirely in that question, she said something that I want to pick up on. She feels that 27,000 jobs “pales into insignificance”, as she put it. That is a net jobs increase of 27,000 jobs. I want people in the chamber and people in Scotland to know that the Labour Party leader is now reduced to saying that an increase of 27,000 jobs is, in her words, insignificant. The people of Scotland believe that 27,000 jobs are of great significance at the present moment.

I know that it is embarrassing for the Labour Party to have it pointed out in Parliament that its London leadership has decided to adopt wholesale the policies of George Osborne, but let us remember that when Johann Lamont talked about a “something for nothing society”, she was not talking about corporation tax. She was talking about taking away people’s bus passes, about introducing tuition fees for students and about taking away free personal care. She was talking about reversing all the great social gains that this Parliament has delivered for the people of Scotland.

Finally, I note that Johann Lamont thinks that the folk behind me are a “gang”. I point out to her that, after the Aberdeen Donside by-election, this gang is bigger than her gang.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. I add my tributes and those of my party to those that the First Minister paid following the death of Peter Fraser. As a member of Parliament, in government and in his contribution to the law, he was a committed public servant. We feel his loss and our thoughts are with Fiona and his family at this time.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01492)

I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.

Two weeks ago, I asked the First Minister about the scandal of vulnerable and desperately ill people having to pay for care that they should have received for free. This week, the Scottish Government announced a review into whether people are being denied funding for continuing healthcare. I welcome that, especially as new official figures show that the number of people receiving national health service funding for continuing care has gone down by 37 per cent in the past four years. However, we still do not know how many people have been affected or how much money they have had to spend. Will the First Minister tell us what work the Scottish Government is undertaking to establish the true extent of the issue?

As Ruth Davidson rightly says, Alex Neil has instigated the independent review to ensure that eligibility for NHS continuing healthcare is being assessed appropriately and consistently across Scotland. The review will be led by Dr Ian Anderson, who is a distinguished physician and past president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. The review will assess whether guidance is being followed and whether a consistent approach is being taken across Scotland, assess whether improvements are needed to raise awareness of NHS continuing healthcare among professionals, and consider whether an independent appeals process is required. That substantial step by the health secretary will enable us to make absolutely sure that all patients in Scotland are getting the help and assistance to which they are entitled.

I asked the First Minister how many people have been affected and how much money they have had to spend. In his answer, he talked of the welcome review, which will look at administration in the future, but it will do nothing to help those who have been affected in the past, including at least one family that was forced to sell the mother’s house to pay for her care when it is likely that it should have been covered by the NHS.

Two weeks ago, I asked the First Minister to institute a full audit for each health board to find the people who have been affected so that we can right this wrong. He failed to answer. The Scottish Government’s position is that anyone who feels that they may have been wrongly charged for their continuing care should come forward. Surely the First Minister must appreciate that many of those who have been affected will be among the people in society who are least able to do that. They are people with complex care needs and many will be residents in nursing homes. Some may be deceased. It is simply not good enough for the Government to put the onus on them or their surviving relatives, if they have any.

This is a systemic failure and the Government needs to fix it. The First Minister has already moved on the issue by announcing the review. Will he now commit to taking the further proactive steps that are needed to identify the potentially hundreds of ill and infirm people who have been forced to pay for care that should have been covered by our NHS?

I caution Ruth Davidson on a number of aspects. The steps that the Government has taken are good steps, as we are going to fulfil Alex Neil’s pledge to ensure that everyone in Scotland who is entitled to continuing care in the national health service receives it properly.

I remind her that every single patient is currently assessed. When Ruth Davidson asks these questions—as she has done previously—she seems to forget that each patient is currently assessed. The assessment is what is being reviewed, to ensure that it is being applied consistently across the health boards.

Around 72 individuals have contacted the Scottish Government since the publicity on the issue. Each and every one of those cases is being personally examined to see whether there has been any misapplication.

I point out to Ruth Davidson the fundamental difference between our country and society, which has free personal care, and one that does not. Many of the patients—I think three quarters of the people—who are receiving continuing care are in hospital. Whether they have been defined as being eligible for continuing care does not affect the care that they are receiving, as they are in hospital, receiving their care in that fashion. There is a fundamental difference between a society that has free personal care and one that does not in respect of how people are categorised and the necessity for them to be categorised to get the benefits to which they are entitled.

We also separately classify NHS long-stay care in Scotland. Over the same period in which there has been a reduction in NHS continuing care, long-stay care has increased from 488 to 562 cases. How people are categorised within the Scottish health service involves a balance of opinion. Rather than jumping to conclusions and talking about hundreds of cases—or thousands, as Ruth Davidson did in her press statement yesterday—we should allow Dr Ian Anderson to review the matter to ensure that the categories are being applied consistently and appropriately across Scotland, and then act on his recommendations and results.

Let us remember that every single case is assessed, and that there are 77,000 vulnerable older people in Scotland who have the benefits of a society with free personal care.

Does the First Minister agree that this morning’s announcement by the United Kingdom Government that there will be a specific islands contract for difference rate is very good news for our islands, for Scotland and for the UK, which will benefit from the significant generation capacity of our islands, and that credit is due to all Highlands and Islands MSPs, to the island councils and to the Scottish Government, who have worked together and campaigned for years on this important issue?

A huge and consistent theme throughout the period of this Administration, since 2007, has been getting justice for the islands on connection charges. The news is a tribute to the island councils and to local MSPs. The Parliament should record its thanks to Fergus Ewing, who proposed the joint study group with the UK Government, which has come up with a proposal to rectify the wrong.

I caution members as, at this stage, this is just a commitment in principle. There is no detail and we do not know whether the contracts for difference will be the same for all islands or whether there will be one for the island authorities. Nonetheless, this is important progress. The island communities of Scotland have massive renewable energy potential. A key aspect of unlocking that potential is to ensure that it is recognised in the energy pricing system. That has been accepted in principle today, and I look forward to further co-operation with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the other London departments to ensure that the commitment is brought to reality. I agree with Mike MacKenzie that the announcement is good news for our island communities.

Presiding Officer, you will be aware of claims made this week by a former senior examiner that the higher maths paper has been dumbed down. Previously, the team of senior examiners for higher maths resigned. Those people know the higher maths paper better than any bureaucrat or politician. Pupils, their families and teachers need to be assured of the integrity of higher maths. Will the First Minister order an investigation into what is going on with higher maths?

As the member should remember, and as I recall, the controversy last year was because the paper was too difficult, as opposed to its being “dumbed down”, as he puts it. We should hesitate before suggesting that the significant and welcome increase in the pass rates—not just for higher maths but across the range of examinable subjects—is due to anything other than the excellent performance of our pupils and the wonderful assistance of our teaching fraternity.

---

Spending Review 2015-16

3. To ask the First Minister what effect the 2015-16 spending review will have on the Scottish Government’s budget. (S4F-01504)

The spending plans announced yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean that in 2015-16 Scotland’s departmental expenditure limit budget will be reduced by a further £333 million in real terms compared with 2014-15, excluding the financial transactions—the loan finance—that require to be repaid to the Exchequer. The position is hugely challenging and means that over the period from 2010-11 to 2015-16 the Scottish Government’s fiscal resource DEL will have been reduced in real terms by 8.9 per cent and conventional capital DEL by 26.6 per cent. Let me repeat that: over that period, there will in total have been a real-terms decrease of 8.9 per cent in the resource budget and 26.6 per cent in the capital budget. Those sobering figures indicate the extraordinary nature of the financial straitjacket in which austerity from Westminster has placed this Administration for Scotland.

Does the First Minister agree that the chancellor is attempting to hide the cuts to the capital budget with loans that Scotland will have to pay back in due course and that that is fooling no one? Does the First Minister further agree that next year’s referendum offers Scotland the chance to choose a fairer future, free of Westminster’s damaging economic policies that threaten this country’s recovery?

John Mason is right on the button. With regard to what has been announced for two years’ time, I point out that the financial transactions, which require to be repaid, and the Parliament’s access for the first time to borrowing powers have been lumped together as if they were free and gratis gifts from the munificence of the Westminster treasury. However, the first is money that has to be paid back and the second is money that has to be borrowed in two years’ time. David Mundell’s demand on last night’s “Newsnight Scotland” that this money, which is to be borrowed in two years’ time, should be immediately used this year in the Scottish economy defies belief. I advise people to have a look at Gordon Brewer’s demolition of David Mundell last night if they want to see the totally transparent nature of the Tory and Labour plans for continued austerity in Scotland.

---

China (Direct Air Link)

4. To ask the First Minister what economic benefits a direct air link to China would bring to Scotland. (S4F-01500)

This matter has huge potential. The net present value of a direct air link to China over a five-year period has been assessed at £41 million, which would be a boost for tourism and trade with one of the world’s fastest growing economies. The European and External Relations Committee has highlighted that a direct link would be of substantial assistance in the development of Scotland’s business trade with China, as well as helping Scotland to be more of a tourist destination for the Chinese market. This week, the Minister for External Affairs and International Development held constructive talks with the Civil Aviation Administration of China in Beijing at which all parties reiterated our desire for progress to be made.

I welcome the Government’s on-going commitment to establishing a direct air link with China, but does the First Minister agree that a substantial barrier to securing new international routes and, indeed, protecting existing domestic links is the United Kingdom Government’s punitive approach to air passenger duty?

Of course it is—and every airline carrier and airport in Scotland agrees. The approach to air passenger duty is punitive and discriminatory. Incidentally, this is another tax where, according to analysis, reduction or elimination would result in additional, not less, revenue and I hope that this Parliament will reiterate the strong support that it has expressed in the past for bringing air passenger duty under the Parliament’s remit. What a contrast there is between the UK Government’s air passenger duty and its discrimination against Scottish airports and the work of our transport minister in securing Inverness’s links with London, which has paid off so handsomely in the past few days.

---

Assaults on Police Officers

5. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to reduce the number of assaults against police officers. (S4F-01493)

Assaults on the police officers who serve our communities are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced to Parliament in February, contains proposals for a new financial penalty known as the restitution order, which will allow courts for the first time to make those who assault police officers pay directly to the services that support officers who have been assaulted in the course of their duties.

No worker in Scotland should go to work expecting to be assaulted. Although crime in Scotland is at a 37-year low, statistics published this month indicate a significant increase in the number of assaults on police officers in the past 37 years. Indeed, it is estimated that the increase is over 50 per cent. This Government needs a plan for reducing the number of assaults on police officers and other workers who serve the public—can we see it?

I have laid out the hope and belief that restitution orders will support the general policy that protects not just police officers but other key public sector workers who put their safety on the line to help us all.

I have looked very closely at the question of police assaults, and particularly the contrast that was made in one of our newspapers between assaults in Scotland and assaults in the Metropolitan Police. We are examining that, because it is important to get to the basis of the statistics.

Last year, the number of recorded assaults—common and serious—of police officers in Scotland was 5,555. That is far too many, but the number compares with 7,316 in 2006-07, so there has been a downward trend over the past few years. Nonetheless, there is a contrast with a much lower number of assaults in the Metropolitan Police, and we have to examine that very carefully to see whether there is actually a substantial contrast or a definitional issue. As members know—and as Graeme Pearson certainly knows—we record both common and serious assaults; we do not define just serious assaults.

When the analysis is completed, I will be very glad to arrange for Graeme Pearson to have a meeting with the minister to examine it in more detail and to look at our comprehensive plan to protect public service workers against assault.

---

Type 2 Diabetes

6. To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to address the number of cases of type 2 diabetes. (S4F-01502)

We are maintaining a strong focus on preventing type 2 diabetes and its complications by trying to address the underlying risk factors. That includes supporting programmes for smoking cessation, healthy eating and promoting regular exercise. We are also investing this year to support the implementation of the diabetes action plan, which sets out an ambitious improvement programme for health boards across Scotland.

The First Minister will be aware that an estimated 49,000 people have undiagnosed type 2 diabetes and that a further 620,000 are at a high risk of developing the condition. That is a ticking time bomb that has potentially devastating consequences for the health of individuals and the national health service. Will the First Minister commit his Government to fresh and urgent action? Specifically, will he ensure that diabetes is made a national clinical priority?

Murdo Fraser will know that the national strategy for tackling diabetes in the diabetes action plan places particular focus on the disease. It is worth stressing that the diabetes survey, which is the most comprehensive survey of its kind in the world, is providing valuable information, and each health board is reviewing the survey results and the managed clinical networks, which are the vehicles for improving diabetes services in every NHS board area across Scotland. It is also worth noting that, in view of recent inward investment decisions, Scotland will shortly host the research and development for diabetes of the whole Johnson & Johnson group in the world. In terms of our life sciences industry and finding ways to monitor, contain and cure the condition, that is a fundamental thing that Scotland should be proud of.

Make no mistake: diabetes initiatives are very much a priority for the Government. I am certain that the health minister will be delighted to speak to Murdo Fraser to see whether any further initiatives can be planned to tackle that dreadful condition.

Dave Stewart should be brief. Welcome back.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

The First Minister will be aware that diabetes is the main cause of blindness in people of working age and that it accounts for half of non-traumatic lower limb amputations. Will he support a high-risk, targeted screening regime to find the hundreds of thousands of Scots who suffer from diabetes and do not know it? Will he join the crusade to eliminate Scotland’s silent killer?

I, too, welcome the member back.

We will certainly examine that proposal. The diabetes survey is the most comprehensive survey of its kind in the world, but the issue of a screening programme could no doubt be further considered. That is actually part of the action plan that is going to the health boards. Perhaps the member would like to discuss the matter further with the health minister. I am sure that the member shares our pride that, in his area, there is the research and development for diabetes work across the world from Johnson & Johnson in the LifeScan facility.