Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01854)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, said yesterday that he would have no say in there being a currency union if there was a yes vote but that, if there was one, we would need to have shared institutions, shared mechanisms and tight fiscal rules. We would cede sovereignty. [Interruption.]
Order.
Scottish National Party members obviously did not listen to what Mark Carney said, but that, of course, is par for the course—they do not listen to anyone who says anything that might challenge them.
That would mean that an independent Scotland would have to share mortgage rates, tax rates and a banking system and have our spending, borrowing and welfare decided by a foreign country that we had just left. In that respect, I pass on my gratitude to John Swinney, wish him all the best in his next role and ask the First Minister whom he would prefer as his replacement—Ed Balls or George Osborne?
I do not know how I can break the news to Johann Lamont: we do not control the currency or interest rates at the moment, and George Osborne does not control interest rates, because they are controlled by the independently operating Bank of England. That control was ceded some time ago.
Of course being in a currency union means not having control of the currency and not having control of interest rates. We do not control those things at present. We do not control the other things that Johann Lamont listed, either—they are controlled in London.
Johann Lamont will find some of the things that we shall control as an independent Scotland on page 46 of the economic levers report that was published last year. They include excise duty, air passenger duty, value added tax, capital gains tax, oil and gas taxation, national insurance, income tax, corporation tax, competition law, consumer protection, industry regulation, employment legislation and the minimum wage—that is hugely important—energy markets and regulation, and environmental regulation. All those things are controlled in London at the moment and all of them will be controlled in Scotland in an independent Scotland.
I fear that the First Minister thinks that all this questioning is just another “ridiculous frippery” that he does not have to deal with; the rest of us are in the real world.
I had thought that the First Minister said that the reason for wanting independence was that all decisions about Scotland should be made in Scotland, but it turns out that he does not mind that all those things will be decided elsewhere.
Mark Carney said two other things yesterday, one of which was that he reported to the United Kingdom Parliament—a Parliament from which Alex Salmond proposes to remove all Scottish representation. Mark Carney also said that the decision on a currency union was entirely one for politicians. Considering that both George Osborne and Ed Balls have said that a currency union is highly unlikely and that, yesterday, the Treasury said that it was highly unlikely, what is the First Minister’s plan B if a currency union fails?
I say to Johann Lamont that sterling is as much the people of Scotland’s currency as it is London’s currency, and the Bank of England is one of the assets of the United Kingdom to a share of which Scotland is entitled. That is the shared governor proposal that was put forward by the Scottish Government.
I read out a long list of things that an independent Scotland would control, and I think that those are really important things. I think that it is important to be able to set a minimum wage that keeps pace with inflation, as opposed to allowing it to reduce, as has happened over the past five years. [Interruption.]
Order.
Instead of looking for ways to mitigate the bedroom tax, why do we not have the power to abolish it? I think that it is important to be able to transform childcare in this country and to get the revenues from that transformation into Scotland so that we can finance it. I think that it is important to be able to abolish weapons of mass destruction in Scotland. I think that it is important not to have to participate in illegal wars. Those are the things that we can do with independence that we cannot do as a devolved Parliament. That is perhaps why the support for independence is growing and the support for Johann Lamont’s scaremongering is reducing.
I am not sure at what point arrogance simply becomes delusion, but I think that we are pretty close to that point now. The First Minister must think that all Scots’ heads button up the back but that, after independence, at least they will have zips. It is a ludicrous defence by a man who used to cry freedom but who now gives us a list of wee things that we could do, which we could do—[Interruption.]
Oh!
Order! Mr Russell!
I am not sure that the bravehearts in the SNP imagined that the reason they wanted independence was childcare. The First Minister’s list exposes the fact that he no longer even defends the concept of independence himself.
The First Minister reminds me of Hiroo Onoda, the Japanese soldier who fought on for 30 years after 1945 in the Philippines, refusing to admit that the war was over. The war on the First Minister’s currency plan is over, and Alex Salmond has lost it. Instead of trying to nail his currency plan to its perch to make it seem alive, will the First Minister just be honest with the people of Scotland? His adviser John Kay told him to come up with a plan B. Will he now have the decency to share that plan B with the people of Scotland?
Somewhere in that question, Johann Lamont said that things that I had mentioned were “wee things”, rather like her deputy, who said on television the other night that nuclear weapons were a peripheral issue. Does she really believe that the bedroom tax, the transformation of childcare, abolishing nuclear weapons in this country and not getting dragged into illegal wars are wee things? Is that the Labour Party’s proposition to the people of Scotland—that those are wee things or peripheral issues? They are the substance of the independence debate. Those are the things that people in Scotland want to control.
As I read out a long list of the economic levers that would come under our control in an independent Scotland—which are quite substantial things, not wee things—I will put it this way, so that Johann Lamont understands it. We control 7 per cent of the taxation of this country under this Parliament. Under the much-vaunted Scotland Act 2012, that will increase massively to 15 per cent. Under an independent Scotland, we would control 100 per cent of the taxation base of this country. That is independence.
I expected that there might have been something in there that responded to the challenge of the question that I was asking. This is all displacement activity. Most of the things that the First Minister mentioned he could do right now. [Interruption.]
Order.
What he concedes about his vision of independence is that it would be constrained by a foreign Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was the message from yesterday. What the First Minister is proposing is not going to happen. If it ever did, it could give this Parliament less power in the future than we have now. [Laughter.] SNP members should come back and listen to what is happening in the real world. The First Minister’s answer is that, after a yes vote, those in the rest of the United Kingdom will recant—they will U-turn and start agreeing with everything that he says. If they are going to go that far, they might as well call themselves Nicola.
It was reported that, as Mark Carney left his press conference yesterday, he said, “It’s over. It’s over.” Why will the First Minister not reveal his real plans for a new Scottish currency and admit that his plans for a currency union are over?
Mark Carney set out yesterday the conditions in which a monetary union—a sterling area—would work. They were not a surprise, given that every single one of them was anticipated by the fiscal commission working group’s report, which was published last year.
I noticed that, on the first page of Mark Carney’s speech, he paid respect to the
“pioneering work of”
great
“Scottish economists from Adam Smith to Sir James Mirrlees”,
who have
“had great influence on”
the economics profession. That was quite a significant reference, because Sir James Mirrlees was one of the authors of the fiscal commission working group’s report. Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that it anticipated the requirements to make a sterling area work.
Is Johann Lamont seriously going to maintain that the areas of taxation policy that I mentioned—income tax, corporation tax, oil and gas taxation, excise duty, value added tax, air passenger duty and capital borrowing—are peripheral or wee issues? They are not peripheral or wee issues; they are the substance of just about every political debate that we have had in the Parliament.
John Swinney is currently in discussions with Iain Gray to decide how we might be able to find a way, by going round the legislation, to mitigate the bedroom tax. Would it not be a lot easier if the Parliament had the power to abolish the bedroom tax? [Applause.]
Order.
We have had to make a huge effort to maintain capital spending in this country. That is one of the reasons why our economic performance has been better than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. Would it not have been better if we could have decided to increase capital spending in this country over the past few years? If Johann Lamont actually believes that oil and gas taxation and the great natural resources of Scotland are a small, wee or peripheral matter, she is talking to an electorate that is well aware that, if we mobilise those natural resources and combine them with the human resources in Scotland, we can create a society that is both more prosperous and just. That is the point and logic of Scottish independence.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01849)
I have no plans in the near future.
Ruth Davidson will take the opportunity to disassociate herself and her party from remarks by a previous Secretary of State for Scotland that were circulated by the Conservative Party and which argued that a vote for independence would somehow dishonour the sacrifice of people in the war. We are going to have great debates, but can Ruth Davidson at least put that ridiculous point outside the scope of this debate?
I am not sure, given the campaign that is running in one of Scotland’s national newspapers, that the First Minister is on the strongest ground in talking about intemperate statements that have been made. The previous exchange that we heard had a little bit more heat than light, so I suggest that we all take a bit of a step back as we look at the issue.
The First Minister’s white paper says that an independent Scotland would have “full autonomy” over revenue and spending issues. Yesterday, Mark Carney said that an independent Scotland would need to cede national sovereignty. Those statements are diametrically opposed. I ask the First Minister a very specific question. Who should the people of Scotland believe: Alex Salmond or the governor of the Bank of England?
Clearly, if we enter a monetary union, we cede control over exchange rate and interest rate policy. My point to Johann Lamont was twofold, in the spirit of adding some light. My point is that we do not control those things at present, and neither does the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the Bank of England has been operationally independent and has set interest rates over the past 10 years and more.
I think that it is right and proper to draw attention to the areas of fiscal policy—the substance of mobilising the natural resources of Scotland—and I think that it is independence to control 100 per cent of the taxation base as opposed to the 7 per cent that we control at the moment.
What is proposed in the white paper is a eurozone-style pact, which Mark Carney yesterday specifically said had not worked for Europe and would not work for us, either. More ceding of sovereignty and more pooling of fiscal resources is a two-way street.
The First Minister is expecting the spurned spouse to agree to give up their independence over areas of tax and spend. Exactly what powers does he expect England, Wales and Northern Ireland to give up to join his currency union?
A currency union is an agreement so that countries can enjoy the benefits that Mark Carney set out in his speech yesterday. There are two reasons why the rest of the United Kingdom will want to join a currency union. The first, which is obvious, is that Scotland is the second-biggest market for the rest of the United Kingdom. The second is that, according to the most recent indications, 71 per cent of the people of England and Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom want Scotland to share the pound after Scottish independence. So if that is what the Scottish people want and what the English people want, and it is in the best interest of both countries, I come to the conclusion that it is a sensible proposition. At the end of the day, I have infinitely more confidence in the good judgment of the people of England than I will ever have in the bad judgment of George Osborne.
We will have a constituency question from Christine Grahame.
The First Minister will be aware that this is the third week of an outbreak of norovirus in the Borders general hospital in my constituency. Is he kept regularly informed of progress in eradicating the outbreak and is he satisfied that everything possible is being done to bring the matter to a swift conclusion?
Yes, I am. For understandable reasons, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and I are keeping a careful watch on the norovirus outbreak, given the disruption that norovirus causes to hospital wards. In Scotland as a whole, the level of norovirus has been less than it was last year thus far, but the member is right to point to the issue in the Borders, where there have been specific and particular difficulties. Overall, the level of norovirus has been declining in recent years, but outbreaks can have a severe and dislocating effect on particular hospitals. That is why the health secretary and I have the issue uppermost in our minds and why we aim to continue the plans to deal with norovirus outbreaks when they occur and to try to eliminate norovirus and other hospital-acquired infections from our wards.
Judicial Complaints Reviewer (Review)
To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government last reviewed the powers of the office of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer. (S4F-01852)
Last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said in evidence to, I think, the Public Petitions Committee that the Government does not see a need for a review of the office of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer at this time. The Judicial Complaints Reviewer has been in office since September 2011. She has told Mr MacAskill that she does not wish to be reappointed. We are grateful for her work to date and her commitment to assist with a smooth handover to her successor.
As the First Minister has done, I highlight the valuable contribution that Ms Ali has made in her role, especially in relation to the 20 cases that she has identified as breaches by the Judicial Office for Scotland in relation to the judiciary since 2011. Following Ms Ali’s decision not to seek a second term and her comments, which were reported at the weekend, could the powers of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer be enhanced to give the role greater independence, especially given the equivalent powers and budgets in England and Wales and the role of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Ombudsman?
Let me put it on the record again that, like the member, I am grateful to Ms Ali for her valuable public service over the past two and a half years and for the improvements that she has encouraged in the judicial complaints process. The Judicial Complaints Reviewer carries out her responsibilities independently of Government and the judiciary. In her report for 2012-13, she records having to see 43 review requests and inquiries. By comparison, the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman for England and Wales received 810 complaints and written inquiries, of which 482 concerned the personal conduct of judicial office-holders. The powers and the budget reflect that difference in the workload. There is not actually a process of independent review of judicial conduct complaints in Ireland.
That is the current position. We are grateful to Ms Ali for her work and, in particular, for the commitment that she has given to smooth the handover to her successor.
Internet Domain (.scot)
To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government is giving to the dotSCOT process. (S4F-01866)
We have actively supported the campaign for the new .scot domain since the proposal was referred to us by the Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in 2008. Earlier this week it was confirmed that Dot Scot Registry has concluded contractual negotiations with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and that .scot domains will be available for sale this summer.
The .scot domain gives individuals and organisations in Scotland and the wider Scottish diaspora an option for clearly expressing their Scottish identity or affinity online.
I concur that there are opportunities for industry, not least for companies in the gaming industry, to distinguish themselves as Scottish companies.
Will the First Minister say how the .scot domain can be used to engage with the tens of millions of people in the Scottish diaspora?
Clare Adamson is right to point to the video games industry, which has particular strength in Scotland, as one for which the opportunity will be attractive.
Around the world there are tens of millions of people who claim a family connection to Scotland and many more tens of millions who have an affection for and affinity with our nation. Now that the new Scottish domain name has been confirmed, we have begun research into the practical applications of how best to use .scot domains. We will consult a number of diaspora organisations as part of that process.
There have been a number of occasions recently when a process that started with the Public Petitions Committee has come to fruition. We should all take pride in the work of that committee of the Parliament.
I am sure that we all agree that there will be commercial opportunities for Scottish companies that use the .scot domain name. However, can the First Minister confirm that there are no plans to replace the existing .uk suffix that is used by Scottish Government and many public bodies throughout the country?
I thought for a second that we were going to get the same unwavering support as the member gave to the Bannockburn celebrations before he realised that he was out of touch with the rest of his party.
I would hope that even the Conservative Party would agree that this is an opportunity that the public authorities, Government and people of Scotland should embrace. If that attitude leaves Conservative members behind, I think that I know which side the people, the companies and the public authorities of Scotland will be on.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation Report (Response)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation about the number of families living below the minimum income standard. (S4F-01853)
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that the rate of households below the minimum income standard in Scotland was 21 per cent in 2011-12—a rise of 3 per cent since 2008-09. The report concluded that in 2011-12 the proportion of families below the standard rose sharply as benefit and tax credit cuts started to kick in.
It is unacceptable that, in a country as prosperous as Scotland, a fifth of the population should be living below socially accepted minimum incomes. That is why we need the powers of independence, to defend the welfare system, expand childcare and abolish the bedroom tax.
I thank the First Minister for his expected response. The JRF report states that the number of families living below the minimum income standard has actually increased by 70,000 over the past five years.
Some 82,000 of the families are now under even greater financial strain due to the bedroom tax. We have asked the Scottish National Party Government, for the best part of a year, to fully mitigate the bedroom tax. We have provided evidence of the power that the Government has to do that, as Audit Scotland confirmed in relation to Renfrewshire Council’s assistance fund.
Will the First Minister tell me whether his Government will provide the funds to mitigate the full impact of the bedroom tax?
I welcome Jackie Baillie’s implicit acknowledgement that control of social security is fundamental to defeating inequality in Scotland, which makes her and the Labour Party’s position—that such powers should continue to be reserved to Westminster—all the more incredible.
I say to Jackie Baillie, as gently as possible, that we know that the way to get money into people’s hands is through discretionary housing payments. John Swinney has been meeting Iain Gray and Jackie Baillie to see whether there is a measure that we can use legally to try to defeat the bedroom tax in Scotland. However, every one of us—and, incidentally, just about every person in Scotland—knows that the way to defeat the bedroom tax and the rest of the impositions on the poor and disabled in Scotland is to take the powers over social security that Jackie Baillie alone seems to want to continue to have reside at Westminster.
Is the First Minister in favour of people on a minimum wage paying more tax? If not, why does his white paper reject the Liberal Democrats’ proposals to raise the income tax threshold to £12,500?
The white paper sets out the policies of the Scottish National Party that will transform the lot of the poor and low-paid in Scotland, as opposed to the Government that his party so loyally supports that, as we have heard, has covered and layered sections of Scotland with inequality and poverty. Therefore, anyone supporting the Tory-Liberal alliance, which has visited this on the poor of Scotland, requires a brass neck that is even greater than the Liberals will need in Scotland when they face the people again in the European elections.
Does the First Minister agree that the statutory minimum wage should be at a higher level that people could actually live on, and that Labour and Conservative Governments at Westminster have failed to achieve that? [Interruption.]
I hear the Labour members saying that that is ridiculous. Since the recession of 2008, under the Labour Government and the Tory-Liberal alliance, the minimum wage has failed to keep pace with the cost of living. If the inflation increases had been introduced five years ago, some of the lowest-paid Scots would have been earning more than £600 a year more.
That is why the white paper indicates that the way forward is that we should at least—and perhaps we can all agree on this—ensure by statute that the minimum wage has to keep pace with the cost of living, so that we do not ever have a situation in the future in which the lowest paid bear the brunt of the economic sacrifices that have to be made.
Primary School Places
To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with local authorities regarding the provision of primary school places. (S4F-01859)
There are regular discussions with local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland about a range of issues.
It is, of course, the statutory responsibility of each individual local authority to provide an adequate number of school places for children and young people within its area. As a result of action by this Government and this Parliament, however, we have reduced the legal primary 1 class size limit from 30 to 25, which ensures that our youngest pupils get more time with their teachers.
Parents at the successful and popular Hillhead primary school have been told by the local authority that their children might not, after all, be entitled to a place at the school because it is so heavily oversubscribed, and that the catchment area might have to be redrawn: a decision which is, not surprisingly, causing a great deal of anger, particularly among parents who have moved into that catchment area.
Will the First Minister agree that a system of school placement that is based on catchment areas and is purely supply driven is not working well enough, and that it should be replaced by one that is demand led, in which the money follows the pupil and in which parents have maximum choice to decide which school their children attend?
I do not agree with that because the system that is being proposed by the Conservative Party, as indicated in the past and indicated elsewhere, leads to chaos and the disruption of the school catchment and area place system. I have indicated the local authorities’ statutory responsibility and I am sure that Glasgow will follow that through.
During the first parliamentary session, we had a range of debates in which a successive number of speakers said that there were not enough schools being refurbished or built. I have heard less of that in recent times and I now know the reason why. In the whole period of two sessions of Labour Government, a total of 328 schools were completed or refurbished in Scotland. The total thus far for this SNP Government is 463, which, I have to say, given the capital constraints we have been working under—[Interruption.]
Well, the Labour Party does not want to talk about this any more. No wonder, because it indicates the success of the SNP and the failure of the Labour-Liberal alliance.
The First Minister might be aware that classroom assistants in primary schools in Dundee are being moved out of primary schools where they give support to primary 1 and 2, and put into nursery schools. Will the First Minister commit to making sure that there will be no reduction of support for primary 1 and 2 across Scotland?
I have already given the figures in a previous answer about the improvements that have been made in primary 1 and 2. Given what we saw in the discussion—let us put it that way—between the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Labour Party administration in Glasgow that was reported in the press today, Jenny Marra should hesitate before she starts attacking individual local authorities.
Local authorities have statutory responsibilities. The improvements in the pupil teacher ratio in primary 1 to 3 are clear and evident to see, as indeed is the vast number and increase in schools that have been built and refurbished the length and breadth of Scotland.
I know that Jenny Marra was not around, but I assure her that, in the previous session of this Parliament, her colleagues wanted to attack the SNP Government because, as they saw it, not enough schools were being built. Now that the figures demonstrate exactly the opposite, apparently it has nothing to do with this Government. I think that it is part of the success of the Scotland’s schools for the future programme.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder whether the First Minister would like to clarify something that he said in his answer to Liam McArthur. I believe that he said that the white paper sets out the policies of the Scottish National Party. Was that a Freudian slip, in which case he can just clarify the record, or was it a statement of fact, in which case he could refund the taxpayer for the cost of that document? [Applause.]
Order. As Mr Macintosh well knows, that is not a point of order. I am not responsible—
The First Minister rose—
I call the First Minister.
I know that Mr Macintosh wants to reread the white paper carefully. It sets out the case for an independent Scotland, goes on to say that the choice of Government will be for the Scottish people, and gives an indication of what the SNP would do if we were lucky enough to be chosen by the Scottish people in an independent Scotland.
That ends First Minister’s questions. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.
Previous
General Question Time