Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02752)
I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole chamber when I say that we stand with the international community in our support for the people of Nepal, following the devastating earthquake on Saturday. As I announced earlier this week, the Scottish Government will donate £250,000 to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Nepal earthquake appeal, and I take this opportunity to urge people across Scotland to donate to the appeal, if they are able to do so, so that we can all help people in Nepal to rebuild their homes and their lives.
Later today, I will have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Obviously, members on these benches offer the First Minister our full support for those remarks and that action.
What normally happens at First Minister’s questions is that I ask a question, the First Minister avoids it and then we go back and forth for 10 minutes. I would like to do things a little differently this week.
I had planned to ask the First Minister if she would rule out another referendum, but she will say that that is for the people to decide. I then planned to ask her the question again, but she would just say that there will be another referendum only if there is a material change of circumstances. So, let us cut to the chase and save a lot of time during this busy election period. Can the First Minister simply repeat the exact words that she used on 25 August last year, when she said that the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?
If the people of Scotland want a referendum to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, that is exactly what it will be. [Interruption.]
Order.
This is desperate, last-throw-of-the-dice stuff from Scottish Labour. Talk about a party in its death throes.
The desperate scaremongering over full fiscal autonomy clearly has not made any impact on the polls—no, actually, that is not true; it has made an impact on the polls: the Scottish National Party’s poll rating has gone up. However, given that it has not helped Scottish Labour, the party is now resorting to desperate scaremongering about a referendum that nobody is proposing.
Let me make this very clear—for the benefit of Scottish Labour and Kezia Dugdale, I will put it in simple terms. The election one week today is not about independence and it is not about a referendum. No matter how many seats the SNP wins—and we are working hard to win as many as possible—that is not a mandate for a referendum. This election is about making sure that Scotland’s voice is heard much more loudly than ever before. We have experienced Scottish Labour MPs who go to Westminster and are never heard of again, and it is time for Scotland’s voice to be heard.
I do not know about you, Presiding Officer, but I do not think that that was quite repeating the promise that was made by the SNP to the people of Scotland. The promise was that the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime event and that, no matter how we voted as a nation, we would get back to dealing with the really important issues, such as the fact that the reading levels of kids of all ages in Scotland have declined in the past two years and the fact that next to no progress has been made to close the gap between those from the poorest backgrounds and those from the wealthiest backgrounds in our schools. The First Minister has all this power at her disposal, but what is it for if not to transform the lives of working-class kids?
If I ask the First Minister about her 2016 manifesto, she will say that she has not started writing it yet, but we know that that is not true because her conference speech contained 2016 manifesto promises on the small business bonus scheme, childcare and the national health service. Will the First Minister today rule out a referendum in her 2016 manifesto?
For just a fleeting second, I thought that Kezia Dugdale was going to ask a serious question when she started talking about Scottish education. There is much to celebrate in Scottish education but the results that were published yesterday are not good enough. I am determined to improve them and this Government is determined to improve them.
On the question of a referendum, I have made the SNP’s position very clear. Ultimately, in the 2016 election—indeed, in any election—it is for the Scottish people to decide whom to vote for and whom not to vote for. The Scottish people are in charge at every single step of the way.
I was going to ask Kezia Dugdale what the problem is that Scottish Labour seems to have developed with democracy, but then I looked at the opinion polls and I think that I know the problem that Scottish Labour has with democracy. I offer Kezia Dugdale a little bit of friendly advice. Over the next six days, Scottish Labour might want to look at the polls, desist from the negativity and scaremongering and instead try to muster a single positive reason—if it can possibly find one—for voting Labour.
I look at the polls—we see them and talk about them all the time in the television studios. Do you know what? If those polls are realised next week, there will be pink champagne for everyone. [Interruption.]
Order.
Rupert Murdoch will be buying it, Alex Salmond will be pouring it and David Cameron will be drinking it. That is the reality of the polls.
Just a second ago, the First Minister said that no one is proposing a second referendum, but that is not true. In the past half hour, Jim Sillars, the former deputy leader of her party, has said that there is no question but that another referendum will be in her manifesto next year and that her party members will demand that it be in the first line of that manifesto. Last night, her candidate in Glasgow East said that we should wait to see the result of next week’s election before the SNP decides about another referendum. Her candidates in West Dunbartonshire, Glasgow North, Paisley, Inverness, Caithness and Livingston all see the general election as another step on the march to another referendum. When the SNP candidate in Midlothian said that it was not a no vote, just a “not yet”, was that respecting the result of the referendum?
Desperate does not quite cover it. I know that I am in opposition to Labour, but even I find it quite sad to watch the demise of a once proud party.
Order.
The great heroes of the labour movement must be turning in their graves right now. We are given not a single positive reason for voting Labour, just the same old negativity and scaremongering that it indulged in, arm in arm with the Tories, during the referendum campaign.
Let me make this quite clear: I have the greatest respect for Jim Sillars, but the clue is in the title “former deputy leader of the SNP”. I am the current leader of the SNP, so let me say this clearly once again. This election is not about independence or a referendum; it is about making Scotland’s voice heard and then using that strong voice at Westminster to stand up for progressive politics and to argue for an end to austerity, protection for our public services and the investment in our economy that we need to get people into jobs. That is what a vote for the SNP is about next Thursday, and I hope that people across the country seize the opportunity.
The First Minister asked for one good reason to vote Labour. I will give her one: let us reintroduce the 50p tax rate and use the money that that generates to close the inequality gaps in our schools.
Just yesterday, new figures were published which showed that working-class kids are getting left behind by this SNP Government. Even now—in 2015—a child’s ability to read and write is directly linked to how much their parents earn or where they live. That is a moral outrage—it is a scandal. However, all that the SNP candidates can talk about is another referendum. [Interruption.]
Order. Order! Mr FitzPatrick—enough.
To any Government with the right priorities, the three Rs would mean reading, writing and arithmetic. Is it not the case that, under the SNP, the three Rs simply mean referendum, referendum, referendum?
This is totally and utterly farcical from Scottish Labour. The only people in Scotland right now who are talking about a second referendum are members of Scottish Labour. [Interruption.]
Order.
About an hour ago, a party in Scotland launched a billboard poster about a second referendum. Do you know what? It was not the SNP—it was Scottish Labour. That is who is talking about it. [Interruption.]
Order.
I know that Labour’s campaign is in dire straits, but I do not want to miss the opportunity to thank Kezia Dugdale for her email on Tuesday, which came from her direct to the First Minister’s official email inbox. It asked me if I would be part of Labour’s volunteer effort on election day. [Interruption.]
Order. [Interruption.] Come on—behave.
I do not want to pile more misery on to Scottish Labour right now, so let me break this gently to Kezia Dugdale: I think that I am busy that day.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02754)
I have no current plans.
We have just seen the First Minister gloating over the Scottish National Party’s numbers going up in the polls. What concerns me more is, as she identified, a serious question about the numbers showing literacy standards going down in our schools.
On the campaign trail, each party is rightly talking about opportunities for our young people. The best way to increase opportunity is through a good education. However, we found out yesterday that literacy skills in our schools are getting worse, not better. At primary 4 and 7 and at secondary 2, standards in reading and writing have fallen over the past two years. Those who are being failed most are the children from the poorest backgrounds. That has happened entirely on the Scottish Government’s watch. It is a scandal.
I know that, yesterday, the Scottish Government hastily put together a press release filled with action plans and improvement frameworks. Does the First Minister think that that is adequate to tackle what is becoming a crisis in school standards?
First, I genuinely thank Ruth Davidson for asking a serious question, because this is a serious matter. Just a few moments ago, I said in response to Kezia Dugdale that there is much to celebrate in Scottish education. I will always ensure that we take the opportunity to do that.
Let me make it absolutely and totally blunt that the results that were published yesterday are not good enough. As First Minister, I am determined that we improve them. We are determined not only to improve standards in our schools overall but to close the attainment gap between young people living in our least deprived areas and those living in our most deprived areas. That is one of the most sacred responsibilities of any Government and, as First Minister, it is one that I am personally passionate about.
Ruth Davidson was slightly unfair to describe yesterday’s announcements by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning as “hastily” drawn up, because she will recall that a couple of months ago I announced the establishment of the Scottish attainment challenge, which is backed by extra funding of £100 million.
I personally know, as many of us do, the value of a good education. I am determined that my Government meets our responsibility to ensure that every single young person in our schools gets the best education.
I hear what the First Minister is saying, but the problem is that I have heard it all before. This time last year, the Scottish survey’s numeracy figures were published. They, too, showed that numeracy standards were going down and, guess what, the Scottish Government’s response was—just like yesterday—to stick out a press release, promise a new action plan and hope that the story would go away. Those are sticking plaster solutions that are designed to get through a news cycle but, all the while, our classroom standards are declining.
In her press release yesterday, the First Minister pledged to study the best international practice. I can tell her what that international practice shows. It shows that, if parents and teachers are given more control over their schools, standards will rise. We need to cast off the one-size-fits-all, town-hall-knows-best approach and allow true diversity in the way that we teach our children.
I do not doubt the First Minister’s intentions, but does she have the resolve to ditch the dogma and government by press release and undertake the genuine reforms that are needed?
I will say a number of things to Ruth Davidson.
The Government introduced the surveys so that we know what is happening in our schools and have the information that we need to improve it.
As Ruth Davidson knows, we have established the Scottish attainment challenge. We have also established the read, write, count campaign and the raising attainment for all campaign, which now covers 23 local authorities and 180 schools throughout our country. Although I agree with the premise of Ruth Davidson’s question, she is being unfair to say that the Government has not been taking action to address the issue.
I say this with no defensiveness because the education of our young people is the most important responsibility of a Government: I am determined to ensure that we have the best standards in our schools for all our children. If improvements require to be made, we will seek to make them. As we seek to make those improvements—let me be very clear—no dogma, ideology or political considerations will get in the way of us doing what needs to be done on behalf of the children of Scotland.
Presiding Officer, you will know that a number of the workforce of Tullis Russell in your constituency reside in my constituency. Will the First Minister update the Parliament on what action the Scottish Government is taking to support the people who are affected by Tullis Russell’s move into administration?
Presiding Officer, I know that you will be particularly interested in the answer to that question.
The announcement by Tullis Russell earlier this week that the company had gone into administration is a devastating blow for Fife, particularly for the company’s employees. Our thoughts are with them and their families at this very difficult time.
The same day, the Scottish Government announced the establishment of a task force that will be jointly convened by the Deputy First Minister and the leader of Fife Council. The Deputy First Minister visited the site on Tuesday to meet managers and staff and to underline the Scottish Government’s commitment to assisting all those who are affected.
That task force will consider all options and possibilities for finding a buyer. We do not underestimate the challenges that lie ahead, but the Government will make every effort to provide all assistance to those who are affected. That is a cast-iron commitment that I give to the chamber.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02753)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for the efforts that she and John Swinney are making on Tullis Russell. My wife was made redundant from the company on Monday, and I know that the workers at the plant are appreciative of the Government’s efforts.
The First Minister might think that she has answered the question on a second referendum, but it is clear that she could make a statement here and now that, in the next session of the Scottish Parliament, there will not be another referendum. Why can she not simply say that?
I think that I have made it absolutely crystal clear.
No, you have not.
Order.
Unless there is some change to the circumstances that prevailed during the previous referendum, when the people of Scotland debated and decided the issue, there will be no proposal for another referendum. That is the first point.
The second point is a fundamental, democratic point that I would have thought the leader of the party with the word “Democrat” in its name would be able to grasp. If the Scottish National Party ever proposes in a manifesto a second referendum, that, in and of itself, will not bring about a referendum. People in Scotland will first have to vote for that manifesto and give the SNP sufficient numbers to get the legislation through the Parliament. That is democracy. The decision ultimately lies with the people of Scotland. What is this problem with democracy that the other parties appear to have developed?
The problem with that answer is that, in the biggest democratic experience of our life, last September, we quite clearly heard the First Minister saying that there would not be another referendum for a lifetime. This is the neverendum that we warned about. We saw the consequences of the whole machinery of government being focused on the referendum for the last three years. The national health service and the police bear witness to that problem. [Interruption.]
We have seen the long period of political uncertainty in Quebec and the economic consequences of that, too. That is why people are concerned about the issue—they are concerned about it on the doorsteps.
Members: No, they are not.
Order.
The First Minister could make it quite clear today. It is very simple. We are not even asking her to rule it out for a lifetime—just rule it out for the next session. That is what we are asking for. Why can she not do that?
Willie Rennie talks about Quebec and neverendums. What he does not tell people is that, although there have indeed been two referendums in Quebec, they were 15 years apart, and the last one was 20 years ago. That is not really the picture that he paints.
If the people of Scotland want a referendum to be ruled out for a generation, a lifetime or 10 lifetimes, that is exactly what will happen, because the people of Scotland are in charge. That is the fundamental principle. I do not know how many doors Willie Rennie has knocked on during this campaign—
Quite a lot.
I am sure that it is quite a lot. What people are talking to me about on the doorsteps and on the streets of Scotland is not another referendum. The concerns that they are raising are about the cuts that Willie Rennie’s party, hand-in-hand with the Tories, has imposed over the past five years. What they want in this election is a party that will stand firmly and squarely against austerity. That party is the SNP.
Dungavel Detention Centre (Inspection)
To ask the First Minister what recent communications there have been between the Scottish Government and the Home Office regarding an independent inspection of Dungavel detention centre. (S4F-02756)
The Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Scottish Refugee Council have all requested an urgent collective meeting with detainees at Dungavel, which the Home Office has thus far refused.
The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights wrote to the Home Secretary about the situation at Dungavel on 26 March, urging her to grant permission for the visit requested. As of this morning, we have not yet received a response to the cabinet secretary’s letter.
The denial of access to those groups and the delayed publication of the report by HM inspectorate of prisons following an inspection in February is of great concern, with disturbing reports of hunger strikes, lengthy detentions with no notice of when they will end and transfer at a moment’s notice. Those are surely matters of urgency.
Does the First Minister consider that denial of access and delay has something to do with awkward truths during a general election campaign, when convicted criminals in our prisons have the protection of human rights while people whose only crime is to seek asylum in the United Kingdom have next to none?
I very much share Christine Grahame’s concerns. We can only imagine the desperation of people who are detained, often far from home, with no time limit on their detention and no idea of when they might be released.
It is important to say that to seek asylum is a right—it is not a crime. That is why the Scottish Government supports the recommendations of the all-party groups on refugees and on migration in their recent joint “Report of the Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom”, that
“There should be a time limit of 28 days on the length of time anyone can be held in immigration detention”
and that
“The presumption ... should be in favour of community-based resolutions.”
That is also why the social justice secretary has urged the Home Secretary to allow the STUC and the churches access to Dungavel to meet detainees and hear their concerns.
The fact that we are in the run-up to a general election should not make any difference to the exercising of anybody’s human rights, particularly when we are talking about the human rights of some of the most vulnerable people in the country.
Public Expenditure
To ask the First Minister what level of public expenditure the Scottish Government considers necessary in order to end austerity. (S4F-02757)
Austerity will end when Westminster stops making cuts—when it stops targeting the most vulnerable in our society and when it stops holding back economic growth for the sake of political dogma. That is exactly what the Scottish National Party proposes in this election. We propose an end to cuts and modest spending increases in each year of the next Parliament, which will see the deficit reduce and also free up at least an additional £140 billion to invest in skills, infrastructure, our national health service and measures to protect the vulnerable and lift people out of poverty.
I am sure that the First Minister would like to end austerity, although I advise her to dump full fiscal autonomy in that case. However, is not her whole strategy based on distorting and misrepresenting Labour’s fair plan to end austerity, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said will deliver more spending at the end of the next Parliament than her proposals? Is she not ashamed of the nauseating rubbish that we have heard from her MSPs for months about Labour and Tory spending plans being the same?
The slight problem that Malcolm Chisholm has in citing the IFS is that Ed Miliband said last week after the IFS report was published that it was wrong. He said that he disagreed with it for three different reasons. He said that it underestimated the scale of the cuts that Labour wanted to make.
It is not just me who has caused the problems for Scottish Labour’s attempts to pretend that it is anti-austerity; it was Ed Miliband and Ed Balls who slapped down Jim Murphy and said that, regardless of what he says, he will not be writing the budget and yes there will be cuts under Labour.
The choice for people in Scotland is clear. If they want continued austerity, they have a choice of three parties: Labour, the Tories or the Liberals. If they want an end to austerity and spending increases to help the most vulnerable and protect our public services, the only choice is the SNP.
Is the First Minister aware of the recent study by the centre for macroeconomics, which found that two thirds of economists who were surveyed disagreed that the coalition policies had had a positive effect on the economy? Given that the Labour Party, despite Malcolm Chisholm’s protestations, is also wedded to a cuts agenda, does the First Minister agree that we need a strong team of SNP MPs who will end the austerity obsession at Westminster?
Yes, I agree with that. However respected the economists might be—we all heard Paul Krugman, who is a very respected economist, criticise Labour yesterday for being so weak when it comes to austerity—we know from the experience of speaking to our constituents how damaging the austerity agenda has been. It has pushed children into poverty; it is undermining our public services; and it is holding back the growth in our economy.
We need an end to cuts and an alternative to austerity. If people in Scotland want to ensure that they have MPs in the House of Commons arguing for that, they need to vote SNP and send a massive team of SNP MPs to Westminster.
Approximately how much additional public expenditure is the Scottish Government calling for in 2015-16?
As Gavin Brown will be aware, our own budget is going up by, I think, £600 million in this financial year. We have said very clearly that, over the lifetime of the next Parliament, our alternative to austerity will free up £140 billion to invest in the NHS, lift people out of poverty and get growth in our economy. That is the choice that people have. If they want continued austerity, they can choose between Labour, its pals the Tories and their pals the Liberal Democrats; if they want an end to austerity, they need to vote SNP.
Single Application Form System
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on reports of issues relating to the new single application form information technology system. (S4F-02762)
This is the first year of the new payment system for the more complex common agricultural policy. Although the core of the new system is working well, with 17,000 farm businesses having successfully registered on it, we are aware that some users have experienced issues in the application process. Indeed, other European Union countries have experienced similar problems.
Information technology staff are monitoring the system constantly and working hard to fix issues to ensure that the new system works well. The Government’s processing team is also happy to support applicants who encounter difficulties, and we have extended the deadline for the submission of single application forms by one month, to 15 June, to allow more time for people to get used to the system and the rules of the new CAP programme.
In addition, we recognise that online applications do not suit everyone, so paper applications are still welcome.
I appreciate the First Minister’s response, but I genuinely worry about the information that she is being given, because the fact is that the online system has already cost more than £130 million, which is more than twice the original estimate, and it just is not working. Frankly, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment has admitted defeat by extending the application deadline by a month. Agents have given up on the system and are now having to photocopy paper application forms because the Government has run out of new ones. Just last weekend, we learned that around 200 Government employees who were working on the new system had been sacked and replaced by inexperienced agency staff, many of whom are on tier 2 visas. This shambles—that is what it is—is happening on her cabinet secretary’s watch, but Scotland’s farmers will pay the price. Quite simply, what will the First Minister do to get a grip on the situation?
I do not accept that characterisation of the issues that are involved, although I accept that there are issues, and we are working to address them.
On the issues around visas, the member should be aware that there has been extensive engagement with the Home Office on that and its investigations have found no evidence to support the allegations that have been made.
On the wider issues that Alex Fergusson raises, 17,000 farm businesses have registered successfully on the system, although we understand that some users are experiencing issues in the application process. That is not unique to Scotland. Other European Union countries, including England and Wales, are experiencing similar problems. We are working to address the issues and we will continue to do so. I know that the cabinet secretary would be happy to meet Alex Fergusson, if he wants to take me up on that offer, to sit down and discuss the issues and the feedback that he is getting from his constituents. We are determined to resolve the issues, and Richard Lochhead is working hard to do so.
I, too, welcome the fact that farmers and crofters have been given extra time to fill in what are incredibly complex forms and that, to date, there is a commitment that the payments will be made on time. Everybody in the industry welcomes that, I think. However, will the First Minister commit to personally investigate and to ask for a high-level inquiry into why repeated warnings that the process was botched and was going to fail were not acted on, which has led to huge stress and uncertainty among our farming and crofting communities? Will she also investigate why the cost has more than doubled? That is just for the administration of the system, never mind the extra resource that will have to go in to ensure that the payments are made on time.
I thank Sarah Boyack for her question and for the way in which she asked it. She is right to point to the sensible move that has been made to extend the timescale, and she is absolutely right to point to the fact that the commitment has been given that payments will be made on time. If there are particular issues that Sarah Boyack or any member from across the chamber wants me and the cabinet secretary to look into in more detail, we are happy to do that. We are determined to address and resolve the issues that are being raised, and we will continue to take all appropriate action to do so.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Living Wage