Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
First Minister's Question Time
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab): To ask the First Minister what engagements he has
planned for the rest of the day.
The First Minister (Alex Salmond): Later today, I will be doing one or two wee things to take
forward the Government's programme for Scotland.
Johann Lamont: That is such a relief to me, because we know that one person's wee things
are another person's ridiculous frippery.
On Tuesday, in what the Financial Times described as the highest-profile intervention yet from
business, the chief executive of BP, Bob Dudley, said that he was against Scotland leaving
the United Kingdom. He said that there is too much uncertainty, including about what
currency an independent Scotland would use. In response, the First Minister told BBC Scotland
that, "of course, there are many, many chief executives
who are firmly in favour of Scottish independence."
Will the First Minister name the "many, many chief executives" of oil companies such as
BP who are in favour of Scottish independence?
The First Minister: There are hundreds of people in Business for Scotland, who are Scottish
businesses arguing for the welfare and benefit to the people of Scotland that would come
from independence. The most important thing that Bob Dudley said was that the investment
plans of BP — which were announced very recently, just in the past two years — would
continue. That is absolutely right, because they are made on an economic basis. BP recognises
that just as, over the past 40 years, it has been extremely business sensible and lucrative
for it to invest in the North Sea, so that will be the case over the next 40 years.
We should look at the investment decisions that are being made and the "sparkling performance"
—to quote Ernst & Young— of inward investment in Scotland. The substantial investment decisions
that are being made in Scotland are what indicate confidence in Scotland's future and are what
Johann Lamont should recognise are not wee things, but very substantial things indeed.
Johann Lamont: The First Minister has got a problem with the big things, such as answering
the question that he was asked. Not for the first time, the First Minister is deciding
for people what they are saying. He tells the rest of the United Kingdom what is in
its interests in relation to currency; he tells Europe what it thinks about what might
happen to Scotland in the future; and now he is telling Bob Dudley what he thinks the
future is for his company. The First Minister should listen to what Bob Dudley said, rather
than assert what he said.
BP has invested £35 billion in the North Sea and is planning to invest another £10
billion by 2017. BP's North Sea investment employs 4,000 people, and to date it has extracted
more than 5 billion barrels of oil and gas. I suggest that we listen to what Bob Dudley
says.
The First Minister said that "many, many chief executives" back Scottish independence. I
ask again: will the First Minister name the "many, many chief executives" of companies
that are comparable to BP who back independence?
The First Minister: As I said, Business for Scotland has hundreds of members, who are
people arguing for independence for Scotland.
Johann Lamont accuses me of putting words in Bob Dudley's mouth, so I shall quote him
exactly from the Daily Express of 5 February. Talking about projects including the Greater
Clair exploration scheme, he said:
"They'll keep production ... going past 2050".
I quote him exactly in pointing out the substantial investments that BP and other companies are
making in the waters around Scotland at present.
It was not always like that — I have a range of quotes here — because investment dried
up in the period under Labour Government because of the constant tax changes, and that is not
to mention the 2011 Alexander-Osborne swipe at the industry, which also dried up investment.
That is why production has been declining over the past few years. However, thanks to
the investment that is going in, Oil & Gas UK forecasts that production could reach 2
million barrels a day by the end of the decade, up from 1.5 million barrels a day in 2013.
The investment talks.
What Bob Dudley says is important, but I have been looking at what another Bob, Bob Holman,
has said in The Herald today — [Interruption.] Well, he is Keir Hardie's biographer and therefore
he should be listened to with respect. He said:
"I am a member of the Labour Party, which is against Scottish independence, but I will
be voting Yes in September. My decision is not because I have strong nationalistic feelings,
but because I believe in democracy and equality."
Perhaps Johann Lamont should also listen to the many Labour Party members who have been
declaring for yes, such as Alex Mosson, Charles Gray, Mary Lockhart and John Mulvey; she should
look at the reasons why they are declaring for yes, then perhaps even she will decide
to see the arguments for justice, equality, prosperity and investment in an independent
Scotland.
Johann Lamont: Sorry, but I was only taking the First Minister at his word when he said
that "there are many, many chief executives" who support independence. As he said it, I
presumed that he would be able to give us at least one name, rather than all that displacement
activity.
On Tuesday, the chief executive of Sainsbury's, Justin King, said of Scotland:
"Once it is a separate country, we and other retailers will take a view of what the cost
structure is, and of course the revenue structure too. If you were to strike that today, there
is no doubt Scotland is a more costly country in which to run a grocery retail business."
Sainsbury's says that independence has negative consequences, and so do Asda and Morrisons.
Together, they employ—[Interruption.] It might not matter to SNP members, but it matters
to shop workers the length and breadth of this country. The chief executives of BP,
Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisons have all warned about the consequence of independence. The
First Minister says that "there are many, many chief executives" who are in favour of
his plan. Again, I ask him to name the "many, many chief executives" of businesses that
are comparable to BP and the supermarkets who actually back him.
The First Minister: The supermarket argument fell flat when it was run the first time in
December and it falls flat again. It is not shop workers whom Johann Lamont is quoting
— [Interruption.]
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): Order.
The First Minister: That is the point of the argument about what is important to Scotland.
In today's Daily Record, Margaret Curran said: "we need to stop talking like the political
elite".
Johann Lamont has talked about nothing else but the political elite in this question.
Margaret Curran says:
"I could talk until the cows come home about currency unions ... But if you are sitting
home at night watching television, that is not the language you talk in."
That is the exact point. Let us talk the language of people. Let us talk about jobs and investment
The First Minister: Let us talk about the transformation of childcare, about the bedroom
tax and about what this Parliament has achieved. Do not cite the elite; cite the people of
Scotland, who are rallying to independence. [Applause.]
The Presiding Officer: Order.
Johann Lamont: It is obvious that the First Minister's special advisers have been on double
time trying to find him words to put in a space so that he does not have to answer the
question. It is precisely because we are concerned about the consequences for ordinary people
that we challenge the First Minister on his obsession of the past 40 years. Is it not
the case that rule number 1 in Alex Salmond's book of communication is to assert something
that is untrue and keep on repeating it often enough in the hope that people will believe
it to be true, even when it is not?
The First Minister cannot explain what the currency would be in an independent Scotland,
but every major supermarket—not the elite—says that the price of groceries would go up, and
the chief executive of one of our biggest oil companies has recommended that Scots should
reject separation. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland says that he has failed
to answer basic questions on pensions. The First Minister's response is to stick
his fingers in his ears and carry on regardless. At what point does the First Minister acknowledge
that the chief executive of BP, our supermarkets and ICAS might know what they are talking
about? At what point will he accept that leaving the United Kingdom will be bad for the people
of Scotland?
The First Minister: Let us deal with the oil industry. When commenting on the white paper,
Malcolm Webb, the chief executive of Oil & Gas UK, which represents the whole industry, said:
"We are particularly encouraged with commitments to encourage exploration and measures to maximise
the economic recovery of the oil and gas reserves. We also welcome reassurances on future decommissioning
relief and the commitment to consult on future fiscal changes."
In terms of Johann Lamont—[Interruption.] I am quoting about things that matter. Investment
dried up during the Labour Government because of taxation changes and it dried up during
2011 after the dawn raid from Osborne and Danny Alexander. Now, investment is surging
in the North Sea and the waters around Scotland; investment will take place and production
will therefore increase.
Our advisers did not have to work into the wee small hours to find the quotations that
I used; they came from pages 8 and 9 of the Daily Record this very morning and say exactly
what Johann Lamont will not admit. This is Margaret Curran, Johann Lamont's friend and
ally. I am not talking about the Labour MPs who will not turn up at the conference because
they do not like Johann Lamont's policies; I am talking about her friend and ally Margaret
Curran, who said: "we need to stop talking like the political elite and start talking
about the issues that really matter to people in the street"— the wee things, the things
that really matter. She said: "I could talk until the cows come home about currency unions
... But if you are sitting home at night watching television, that is not the language you talk
in."
Will Johann Lamont take advice from Margaret Curran, if she will not take advice from me?
On what the Government is doing in relation to chief executives, the Financial Times this
very morning reports on a senior defence executive's comments on the use of the dark arts, saying
that the Government—that is the UK Government—[Interruption.] Well, I am just quoting the Financial Times,
which I am sure that Johann Lamont reads every morning, because of her friendship with all
those chief executives, and which reports that the UK Government's putting
"pressure on companies to speak out against independence suggests ... anxiety about" the
opinion polls and the referendum result.
That is what is happening at the moment, and that is exactly why the wee things, like jobs,
investment, the bedroom tax and transformational childcare, will carry the day in September.
Ruth Davidson (Glasgow) (Con): To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the
Prime Minister.
The First Minister (Alex Salmond): I have no plans, but there is a very good chance
of meeting the Prime Minister on 24 February in Aberdeen. If reports are accurate, he and
his ministers will be in Dyce on the same day as the Scottish Government Cabinet will
be in Portlethen, just 10 miles away. I know that the STV studios in Aberdeen are free
that evening. Surely that is the evening when, instead of the Prime Minister talking down
to Scotland from the seat of power in London, the debate can take place that people in Scotland
want to see.
Ruth Davidson: Not waving but drowning, and sounding increasingly desperate. I can see
why the First Minister wants to throw the chaff out there—[Interruption.]
The Presiding Officer: Order.
Ruth Davidson: Today's Justice Committee report makes clear that "the case has not been made
for abolishing the general requirement for corroboration", and asks the Government to
look again at that hugely controversial proposal. That is a significant and rare intervention.
Will the First Minister give his response?
The First Minister: The response is from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who has asked
Lord Bonomy to look at the safeguards in the matter. Lord Bonomy's credentials in these
things surely cannot be disputed; he is a human rights judge and practitioner over many
years and is hugely respected. It is right and proper that the justice secretary has
asked someone of such distinction to review the legislation and make clear that, in removing
the general rule of corroboration, there is not the risk of miscarriage of justice.
I ask Ruth Davidson to reflect on this. We know that there are miscarriages of justice
in Scotland at the moment, and those miscarriages of justice are the hundreds — some people
argue that there are thousands—of cases that cannot come to court, in which the victims
do not get their day in court and do not get access to justice because, instead of deciding
on the sufficiency of evidence, which is the general principle in law across many jurisdictions,
we have, uniquely, a general rule of corroboration, which makes it impossible to take some cases,
in particular *** cases and domestic violence cases, to court. If Lord Bonomy's review can,
with appropriate parliamentary safeguards, identify a route forward, surely that is something
that, because of our concern for victims, the whole Parliament could find its way to
support.
Ruth Davidson: I do not doubt the Government's concern for victims. Every party in the Parliament
is concerned about victims, but victims of crime are best served by secure and sound
convictions. Removing the requirement for corroboration will change permanently a criminal
justice system that has served this country for centuries. It should not be considered
lightly. The Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Human Rights
Commission and two former heads of the judiciary all say that the plan is wrong.
We are now talking about the integrity of this Parliament. Members are being asked to
vote through a bill that we know to be deeply flawed on the ground that Kenny MacAskill
has said that he will sort it later. There is an obvious solution. We should leave the
scrapping of corroboration out of the bill, ask Lord Bonomy to report on the whole issue
and then look at it again. Surely it is better to make good law later than bad law now.
The First Minister: After Lord Bonomy makes his findings, the proposal will come back
to committee, to consultation, and then to Parliament, so it is impossible to argue that
the integrity of Parliament is being jeopardised by something that requires committee and parliamentary
support. That is the safeguard.
Ruth Davidson should take a very close look at what the Lord President said this morning:
"I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for his sensitive response to the widespread discussion
of this proposal, and for his usual courtesy in letting me see the terms of reference before
they were finalised. The proposed review will enable this issue to be looked at at greater
length by a body of experienced professionals. The terms of reference should allow a thorough
consideration of the issues."
If the Lord President can welcome Lord Bonomy's review, the Parliament should welcome it,
with the parliamentary safeguards.
When the issue was raised, I think by Willie Rennie, a few weeks ago, I referred to a case
and I think that some in the press corps were confused about it, so I want to make it exactly
clear. The case is that of Lee Cyrus, in which a trial could not be brought in Scotland because
of the lack of corroboration. Ruth Davidson's colleague Murdo Fraser appeared on STV news
on 13 December, and this is what he said: "I am very concerned that we are not seeing
criminal proceedings in Scotland against this individual. I think this is an issue that
the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, needs to be looking at to see why that is the case,
and why his victims here in Scotland are not getting justice."
The reason why the victims in Scotland were not getting justice was the general rule of
corroboration. The Solicitor General for Scotland's letter to Annabelle Ewing of 31 December said
that there was no prosecution because of a lack of corroboration.
That case and, more importantly, hundreds and perhaps thousands of others cannot be
brought to court, not because of the insufficiency of evidence but because of a general rule
that is unprecedented in any other legal system. That is why this change is right and proper,
with the appropriate parliamentary safeguards. I could say to Ruth Davidson that it is right
and proper to question that, but it is not right and proper for one member of her party
to demand from the justice secretary an explanation of why a case cannot get to court, and then,
when he finds out that it is through lack of corroboration, not to have the integrity
to come to the Parliament and say that he now understands that. It is not acceptable
to have a Tory representative on a committee who refuses to acknowledge the demands that
her own party has made on STV.
Willie Rennie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD): To ask the First Minister what issues will
be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet.
The First Minister (Alex Salmond): Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Willie Rennie: I heard what the First Minister said to Ruth Davidson on corroboration. To
say that he needs someone as distinguished as Lord Bonomy to fix the problem simply shows
how bad it has got. Appointing Lord Bonomy does not restore justice; it simply papers
over the cracks with a veneer of respectability. Is it not better to work out the fix before
you deliberately cause the problem? Lawmaking in reverse is a shoddy way to expect Scotland's
Parliament to act. Does the First Minister not see that?
The First Minister: I do not think that Willie Rennie is expressing the position fairly.
The appointment of Lord Bonomy is, as the Lord President said today, a "sensitive response
to the widespread discussion of this proposal. I would have hoped that that at least could
be welcomed across the Parliament. It is not a quick fix; a distinguished judge is looking
to make absolutely certain that, as the change is made, appropriate safeguards are there
to prevent miscarriage of justice. That is a substantial point. Any recommendations would,
before implementation, have to come back to the committee for discussion and back to the
Parliament for approval. By definition, this change cannot take place unless and until
the Parliament is satisfied with the proposals that come forward.
Given that the justice secretary has been prepared to do that, does Willie Rennie not
accept that there is a real problem? After his second question, I will come on to the
people who have identified the real problem, who are asking for justice. Does he not accept
that the way forward that the justice secretary has indicated is one about which reasonable
people can say, "If we can protect against miscarriage of justice, surely we should allow
these hundreds or thousands of people access to justice"?
Willie Rennie: What the First Minister is doing is asking Lord Bonomy to fit new locks
to the stable door a year after the horse will have bolted. The First Minister gives
soothing words in this chamber, but he knows that this is a complete shambles.
Three weeks ago, I warned the First Minister that his plans on corroboration were "crackers".
He said that they were "exactly the right thing to do." — [Official Report, 16 January
2014; c 26634.] I said that the justice secretary was "cack-handed".
The First Minister said that he was "doing his best." Since then, Kenny MacAskill rushed
an unsigned letter to the Justice Committee just minutes before its report was finalised.
Within minutes of the report's publication, he rejected it.
The First Minister knows that this is a shambles and that it cannot go on. Will he now overrule
the justice secretary before he causes serious damage?
The First Minister: There are two things to say. First, if Willie Rennie thinks that somebody
of the distinction of Lord Bonomy accepts a remit in a matter of minutes and in a rush,
he seriously underrates the distinction of the judge concerned and the seriousness with
which he will discharge his responsibilities. Secondly, I repeat, so that it is well understood,
that nothing in this regard can happen unless it carries the support of the committee and
eventually the Parliament. It will not be implemented unless and until that happens.
Let us hear the other side of the matter. A press release issued by *** Crisis Scotland
this morning states: "*** Crisis Scotland is extremely disappointed
that the Justice Committee has been unable to back the removal of the requirement for
corroboration." Let us listen to Mary-Ann Davidson, who waived
her right to anonymity to point out to the committee in what I think was very reasonable
language the impact of the general rule of corroboration, which made it impossible for
a successful prosecution for her as a victim of a very serious crime. She pointed out that
the impact of that is "not something that victims are making up."
We have a general rule that makes it impossible to bring many cases to court. I know that
there are people on the Labour benches who believe that. It was in the Labour Party manifesto
that this rule should be changed. Because many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people
cannot get their cases brought to court because of this general rule, there is a feeling of
serious injustice. I say again that if Lord Bonomy can review
and provide for safeguards to make sure that there is no danger of miscarriage of justice,
surely the Parliament can in its heart find a way and means of allowing thousands of people
to get access to justice, so that justice can be done and can be seen to be done.
Jim Eadie (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP): To ask the First Minister what representations the
Scottish Government is making to the United Kingdom Government regarding its legal ability
to provide extra financial assistance to those affected by the so-called bedroom tax.
The First Minister (Alex Salmond): I was going to say that there was general agreement throughout
the chamber in yesterday's debate — apart from the Conservative Party — that the proper
mechanism to provide regular financial assistance directly to tenants who are affected by the
bedroom tax is discretionary housing payments.
The Scottish Government has made a substantial number of representations to the United Kingdom
Government on the matter, starting on 31 January 2012, when Keith Brown, as the responsible
minister at that time, asked for an amendment to the bedroom tax to exempt people who could
not downsize.
We then asked for exemptions for the most vulnerable people, after which, on 6 March
2013, Margaret Burgess asked for the bedroom tax to be scrapped. We then asked for DHP
funding to be raised so that we could back it in Scotland. Now, of course, we are asking
for the ceiling to be removed on discretionary housing payments, because it is the best mechanism
to provide assistance to people in Scotland who are suffering from the bedroom tax, and
so that those people get the help that they deserve.
This week has been a good week for Parliament because we have been addressing issues that
are of great popular concern in Scotland. One of those issues is certainly the inequity
and injustice of the bedroom tax.
Jim Eadie: Does the First Minister agree that it was no "wee thing" for the parties in this
chamber to put aside their differences and to unite to approve the budget yesterday?
However, the time has come for the UK Government and Iain Duncan Smith to do the right thing
and to raise the cap on the level of discretionary housing payments in order to mitigate fully
the impact of the obscene and hated bedroom tax on 80,000 people in Scotland. They must
do it and to do it now.
The First Minister: There are two issues here. I absolutely agree with Jim Eadie that removal
of the cap would be a simple thing to do. It would be done at no cost to Westminster
and could be completed by 1 April. We await the answer from the Department for Work and
Pensions. We should also bear in mind the wise words
of Carwyn Jones, whose Administration has taken a different route. He pointed out in
the Welsh Assembly this very week that while the powers of a devolved assembly can be used
to mitigate, there is a danger—as he put it—that policies that should be scrapped
at UK level are being forced as extra costs on to Scotland and Wales. This Parliament
cannot mitigate the full extent of the injustice of the welfare changes that are being visited
on the people of Scotland, which is exactly why it should have control over these matters
in order that we could implement social justice in this country.
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): To ask the First Minister what steps, beyond
minimum pricing, the Scottish Government will take to tackle alcohol misuse.
The First Minister (Alex Salmond): We have an alcohol framework, which contains more
than 40 actions to rebalance Scotland's relationship with alcohol through legislative change, increased
funding, and improved treatment and support services, and by building an environment that
supports the cultural change that is necessary in the longer term.
We have invested record sums—£237 million since 2008—in tackling alcohol misuse. We
also have £200 million targeted at treatment support services and prevention, including
education and awareness campaigns.
Rhoda Grant: Will the First Minister support the measures in Dr Richard Simpson's proposed
shifting the culture bill, which includes limiting the amount of caffeine that is allowed
in premixed alcohol products? He will be aware of the McKinlay study on young offenders at
HMP Polmont, which found that more than 43 per cent of those who could identify it consumed
one particular brand of caffeinated alcohol—a brand that makes up less than 1 per cent of
alcohol sales. Does the First Minister also agree that bottle
tagging would identify the people who are responsible for selling those products to
people who are under the legal age for alcohol purchase?
The First Minister: I have already said to Richard Simpson that we will look carefully
at all proposals, because this is a matter on which we in Parliament should act jointly.
On Rhoda Grant's first point, there is much dispute about the basis of the research. On
her second point, we are willing to take a good look at bottle tagging.
Rhoda Grant should accept that the substantial body of evidence demonstrates that affordability
is a key driver in increased consumption, so addressing price is a crucial element of
any credible long-term strategy. That is why this Government believes that a minimum price
per unit of alcohol, as part of the wider package of measures that I have listed, would
be the most effective way to tackle alcohol misuse in Scotland.
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP): To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish
Government is taking to reduce child poverty.
The First Minister (Alex Salmond): Progress is being made on child poverty. That progress
was seen in a report that was published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation at the weekend,
which shows that child poverty fell 10 percentage points in the 10 years to 2011-12. That is
about twice the decrease that has taken place in England.
However, no one in the chamber can ignore the stark warning from the Child Poverty Action
Group that, as a result of welfare cuts, it is possible that by 2020, an additional 100,000
children will be in families that are forced back into poverty, which will reverse in substantial
part the improvements that have been made over the past 10 years.
Roderick Campbell: I welcome the First Minister's answer. Can he tell me how independence would
provide further opportunities to address child poverty? [Interruption.]
The First Minister: I would have thought that such opportunities would be pretty obvious—even
to members on the Labour benches. When the Child Poverty Action Group says that
the welfare changes that will affect families throughout Scotland may put 100,000 children
back into poverty, even Labour members might acknowledge that having control of such things
in Scotland would be a tremendous asset and would help to prevent that circumstance. Only
when Scotland's future is in Scotland's hands and Parliament has the full powers of independence
will we truly be able to tackle child poverty and ensure that the "wee things" and the big
things in Scotland are put to rights.
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab): How about tackling child poverty now? Children
in 22 of the poorest primary schools in Dundee are having their early years practitioners
removed, which is being done in order to meet the 600 hours childcare commitment. Parliament
will agree to provide more money for that commitment. Will the First Minister meet the
leader of Dundee City Council to ensure that that childcare commitment will not come at
the detriment of support for reading and writing in primary 1?
The First Minister: Jenny Marra asks us to tackle child poverty now. The percentage of
children who were in poverty before housing costs was 21 per cent when we came to office.
That percentage has dropped to 15 per cent, which is substantially due to the measures
that this Government has taken. How exactly does Jenny Marra suggest we tackle child poverty
now? Every serious child poverty organisation pinpoints the social security cuts and changes
as the threats, when it comes to child poverty in Scotland. Jackie Baillie wants the powers
over such things to be kept at Westminster, but can Jenny Marra have the courage to say
that they should be controlled in Scotland by this Parliament?
The Presiding Officer: That ends First Minister's questions. Members who are leaving the chamber
should do so quickly and quietly.