Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02188)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Could the First Minister give me an honest assessment of how our schools are doing?
It is probably better to give the Accounts Commission’s assessment of attainment. Page 6 of its report says:
“Performance has improved against all ten of the attainment measures we examined over the last decade.”
Page 18 of that report says:
“Attainment improved by four per cent for the measures at S4 level between 2004 and 2013. At S5 and S6 levels, attainment improved between five and ten per cent. The vast majority of the improvements in attainment have been made in the past five years.”
I think that that seems a pretty fair summary.
I am glad that the First Minister mentioned that report, because I think that we should look at it in some detail. The Audit Scotland report paints a slightly different picture from what the First Minister has said. It said:
“International comparisons show that the academic performance of Scotland’s pupils is static at best, and in relative decline to others at worst.”
It said:
“In recent years, international attainment surveys have provided evidence that Scotland’s educational attainment levels relative to some other countries are falling.”
To emphasise the point, the report repeated later on:
“Scotland’s performance levels relative to some other countries are also falling.”
Can the First Minister confirm that that is what Audit Scotland said about our schools and tell us what he is doing about it?
I can confirm the two quotes I gave from the report, so let us talk about them in some detail. One quote says:
“Attainment improved by four per cent for the measures at S4 level between 2004 and 2013. At S5 and S6 levels, attainment improved between five and ten per cent.”
It goes on to say:
“The vast majority of the improvements in attainment have been made in the past five years.”
The reason for saying that, of course, is that the last internationally recognised study is the programme for international student assessment—PISA—study, for which we have had the 2012 figures. Unlike the previous PISA study over the preceding few years when the Labour Party was in power and Scotland’s international position was declining across all the ranges, the 2012 study showed that Scotland’s position had remained the same. That is the first time that the decline under Labour has been reversed in the PISA attainment study. I suspect that that is why the Accounts Commission report pointed out that
“The vast majority of the improvements in attainment have been made in the past five years.”
I do not know whether Johann Lamont finds it at all embarrassing that the international comparisons that she cites show that Scotland’s position declined when the Labour Party was in power but, over the past five years in particular, the report shows attainment levels improving. Is it not a substantial credit to the pupils and teachers of Scotland and their commitment to our school system that, under the most difficult circumstances of Westminster-induced austerity, they have managed to bring on such a performance?
We should, of course, congratulate every parent, child and teacher, but they deserve better from the Government.
The First Minister does not respond to points that I make about what the Audit Scotland report says, but let us look at it again. In its original report, Audit Scotland said:
“Comparing similar levels of qualifications with other countries in the UK identifies a much slower pace of improvement for Scotland.”
It went on:
“the pace of improvement remains slow as overall levels of attainment have only improved marginally.”
Why could that be? The report said:
“Between 2010/11 and 2012/13, education revenue spending reduced by £184 million in real terms (5 per cent).”
Can the First Minister confirm that that is what Audit Scotland said about our schools and tell us what he is doing about it?
Let us not slip away from the reality that the international performance was declining when Labour was in power, whereas attainment has improved, particularly in the past five years, while the Scottish National Party has been in power. Let us not slip away from that rather important point, which I know that Labour members want to be re-emphasised.
Let us turn to the finance that is available. It is certainly true that real-terms spending on education declined in the three years that the report covered. The report put that decline at 5 per cent. That is hardly surprising, is it? Real-terms spending available to Scotland from Westminster over revenue declined by 4.1 per cent over that period. If health spending is excluded—we believe that the real-terms health budget must be protected, for the obvious reason that we are committed to the national health service—the decline in Scotland’s spending is significantly greater than 5 per cent.
Does Johann Lamont not realise that declines in spending are the reality and are Scotland’s fate under the austerity measures, which were first pursued by the Labour Party and have been continued by her “colleagues”—as she called them yesterday—in the Conservative Party?
They are the “colleagues” who supported the SNP’s budgets between 2007 and 2011. The late, lamented David McLetchie said that that was the next best thing to a Tory budget, so we need no lectures in that regard.
The First Minister ignored the comments that I quoted from the report. Of course, the excerpts that I read out were in Audit Scotland’s original report, before the Scottish Government got its hands on the text. In the final report, the criticisms disappeared, because the Scottish Government did not want the public to know about them. The reference to the decline in standards was taken out and the fact that the rest of the UK is improving faster than Scotland was taken out.
The truth about our schools was in the draft report, but the final report was watered down. We are entitled to know who decided to do that. Is it not the case that the first casualty of the Government is the truth? Is it not the case that, just as with everything else, the First Minister does not trust the people of Scotland with the truth?
The most remarkable decline in standards is that in Johann Lamont’s questioning. She now has to impugn Audit Scotland’s integrity to try to make a point.
The problem for Johann Lamont is that the comparisons with the position under the Labour Party do not rely just on the report by Audit Scotland—an organisation of outstanding integrity—that the Accounts Commission published today. They also rely on the PISA statistics, which show that Scotland’s performance declined when she was a minister—I do not hold her personally responsible, but she was jointly and severally liable for that decline—but that attainment has improved since the SNP came to power. That is a substantial achievement in the circumstances of austerity.
Johann Lamont does not seem to like the fact that she described the Tories as her colleagues. If she does not like it, why did she say it yesterday? Even more important is that the problem for her is that, when she stands shoulder to shoulder and hand in glove with the Conservative Party, there is no point in her trying to complain when people point out that she says that they are her colleagues. The next thing we know, she will be calling them comrades. I say to Labour members that the price that they will pay for their association with their colleagues will be high and that that will be one of the arguments that take Scotland forward to a yes vote this September.
I call Ruth Davidson—[Interruption.] Order. Let us hear Ms Davidson.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02189)
No plans in the near future, but the comrade’s red outfit sums up the question.
I take compliments whenever they are proffered. I do not get many, but I will take them when I get them.
In committee last week, the Scottish Government’s chief economic adviser was asked by my colleague Murdo Fraser whether his office had done any additional work beyond the white paper on the set-up costs of an independent Scotland. The answer was no. Can the First Minister answer the same question this week? Has the Scottish Government done any further work on how much it would cost to set up any newly independent Scottish state?
What was said in committee is absolutely correct. Our work is contained in chapters 6 and 10 of the white paper. That is the situation, but I would be happy, if Ruth Davidson wants to pursue the point, to look at some of the calculations in those chapters and explain the basis on which they were made.
Perhaps the more elucidation there is on that point, the less “misbriefing”—as the permanent secretary to the Treasury called it—there will be. That was the word that he used in the Sunday Post: the Treasury had “misbriefed” a key statistic.
The more elucidation one can get from the white paper, the better, because the white paper, as Ruth Davidson will know once she gets round to reading it, provides the answers that she seeks.
Of course, nobody in the First Minister’s office would ever misbrief.
Let us sum up where we are on the issue. We know from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth that in 2012 he ordered work
“to build a comprehensive overview of the institutions, costs and staff numbers”
that would be required in the event of independence. Just last year, the Deputy First Minister confirmed that that work was under way, telling a Commons committee:
“we are doing a substantial piece of work on some of this just now ... suffice to say it covers not just running costs but it covers the issues around set-up.”
However, last month, the First Minister’s official spokesman said that there was no overview and no documents, just “emails and jottings”.
This morning, a week after the chief economic adviser said that he had done no work, we read reports that the Government is now rushing out figures to paper over the cracks.
The people at the top of this Government tell us that work has been commissioned, but then they say that it has not. They say that the work is substantial, but then they say that it is not. They say that it will be published before the referendum, but then they say that it will not be.
First Minister, the people of Scotland have to know: what is going on?
What is going on is that Ruth Davidson is waving The Daily Telegraph and pretending that it is an independent publication. I have described The Daily Telegraph as
“the house journal of the Labour Party”.—[Official Report, 23 January 2014; c 26964.]
Of course, as we now know, it is the joint house journal of the comrades.
I will illustrate just how far-fetched that report was. The Daily Telegraph said on page 4—it is interesting that it was on page 4; if the Telegraph had had a bit more confidence, it might have been one of its big headlines—that Scottish Government officials had met Professor Patrick Dunleavy. I met Professor Patrick Dunleavy last week. Does anyone think that, if The Daily Telegraph had real information that it could display to the public, it would say that officials had met the professor?
I met Professor Patrick Dunleavy—which is not a surprise, because three weeks ago, at question time, I said in answer to Ruth Davidson that Professor Patrick Dunleavy is a man I want to meet. I did it, and I now know exactly why the Treasury was engaged in “misbriefing” on Professor Patrick Dunleavy’s work.
The best way to describe it is that, as Professor Dunleavy put it, there were three problems with the Treasury figures. First, the Treasury said that all 180 public bodies would be major departments, which they are not. Secondly, several of them already exist in Scotland and would simply need to be enlarged. Thirdly, his estimate was applied to the “chaotic” way in which the previous Labour Government established new departments—and none of us would want to have the chaos of the Labour Party visited on an independent Scotland.
That is why Professor Dunleavy accused the Treasury of being “bizarrely inaccurate” and “misleading” on his work, and of overstating it by a factor of 12.
The permanent secretary to the Treasury may describe being “bizarrely inaccurate” and exaggerating by a factor of 12 as a “misbriefing” of a key statistic. I think that the people of Scotland will look at that and draw their own conclusion that the unionist cabal—the comrades—are engaged in a campaign of trying to exaggerate the cost of an independent Scotland because they are aware that, week by week, the yes campaign is gaining ground and will carry us to victory this coming September.
Glasgow stands ready to welcome the world in the coming weeks, so I think that we would all have been concerned to see the BBC reports yesterday about so-called phantom accommodation being advertised on online booking sites. What assurances can the First Minister offer that public agencies will do everything possible to ensure that no Commonwealth games visitors are defrauded in that way and that those responsible are subject to the full force of the law?
Those matters are already under investigation, as the member will appreciate. More broadly, measures have been taken to ensure that the accommodation offer to the many visitors whom we will receive from around the world is as we would like it to be in terms of the charging system. That is a separate matter from defrauding, as the member will understand, but it is nonetheless important to Scotland’s reputation. He can be assured that we, our colleagues in Glasgow City Council and the games organising committee are fully aware of the dangers to reputation and are taking the appropriate action to ensure that those do not come to pass.
On the range of preparations that have been made, the games in Glasgow and Scotland are the best prepared—I hope that they will be the best run—in recent history and perhaps in the overall history of the Commonwealth games. We are working our hardest to make sure that the games will be remembered and appreciated by people across the Commonwealth as an engagement in the greatest sporting and cultural festival that the Commonwealth has ever staged.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02186)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
This goes from bad to worse, I have to say. The First Minister has been able to estimate the cost of his policies—those that he likes—down to the last three decimal places but, on the set-up costs, he cannot even give us a quarter of a billion either way. Is he actually confirming today that there is nothing in the Daily Telegraph report that is true about his decision to set up a report on the costs of setting up independence? Is it the case that nothing in The Daily Telegraph is true—
The weather forecast.
—about that report being commissioned?
Somebody said “The weather forecast”. I did not read the weather forecast; I will have to go back and have a look at the horoscope as well.
Willie Rennie should not get to his feet with “This goes from bad to worse” as his first words. That is no way to announce a question at First Minister’s questions.
The Daily Telegraph report has one snippet of truth: it says that officials met Professor Patrick Dunleavy. Yes, they did: they were with me when I met him. I point that out to Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie—who knows The Daily Telegraph, or at least is getting to know it as part of the unionist campaign—because if The Daily Telegraph had an insight into the meeting with Professor Dunleavy and knew what had gone on, it would have known that I was there. Do they think that it would have suppressed the information that I was at a meeting if it had the slightest idea what it was talking about?
I think that Willie Rennie used the word “nonsense”, and that is a very good word to use as far as that report is concerned; indeed, some would say that more generally about The Daily Telegraph—excluding the weather forecast.
That is exactly why the people of Scotland are worried that the Scottish Government is refusing to look at the downsides of independence. That is why they are concerned. [Applause.]
Members: Oh!
Order. Let us hear Mr Rennie.
The First Minister still does not have a clue about set-up costs. On the radio, John Swinney had 13 attempts and still could not answer the question. Just last week, two Cabinet ministers said that it was impossible. Those on the Government benches have tried to tell us that never has a country been more prepared for the transition to statehood and the costs of independence. The First Minister thought that he could get away with it, but he has been caught red-handed. [Laughter.] The First Minister laughs, but he will not be laughing on the doorsteps when people ask the question. They want to know the costs of setting up independence. Is he going to give the answer?
I think that, at the present moment, a Liberal Democrat should not talk to people about the reaction on the doorsteps. The fact that Willie Rennie’s question received more resounding support from members on the Labour benches than they accorded to Johann Lamont perhaps indicates a degree of desperation.
I commend chapter 6 of the white paper to Willie Rennie. At some point, he should go and read it. It looks in substantial detail at the position of one of the four departments that Professor Dunleavy identified as having to be created in an independent Scotland: the foreign office and international relations department.
As Willie Rennie will know, because I know that he reads the white paper, that chapter looks in great detail at the 5,000 offices that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has internationally. We know from statistics in its recent accounts that those offices are worth £2.9 billion. Scotland will be entitled to a share of those assets. In the white paper, we identify similar countries, look at international comparisons and estimate that an independent Scotland will require 70 to 90 embassies. We also point out that the cost of acquiring the overseas properties will be more than met by our share of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assets, and that, on comparable examples, the running costs will be less than the share that we contribute to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the moment.
Presiding Officer, I am sorry that I have gone on to quote the detail, but it was the detail that Willie Rennie was asking for. If he reads the white paper, he will not have to ask me for it.
Independence (Written Constitution)
To ask the First Minister how people in Scotland can benefit from a written constitution. (S4F-02203)
I think that a written constitution provides an underpinning and a basis for everyday life. I do not think that it should be regarded as something that is other than of fundamental importance. Every other country in the European Union and, indeed, the Commonwealth, has either a written constitution or a constitution act. Scotland should be no different from that modern practice.
A written constitution can benefit the people of Scotland by embodying our values as a nation, regardless of which political party is in power; setting out and protecting the rights and the aspirations of our citizens; and giving a firm underpinning to the fundamental principle that, in Scotland, the people are sovereign.
How does the First Minister view the contrast between the Scottish Government proposals for a written constitution for Scotland—100 per cent guaranteed by a yes vote, with sovereignty lying with the people of Scotland—with the pig-in-a-poke offering from the anti-independence parties?
I think that, among the comrades, there are some secret yesers, because, on 12 June—last week—Alistair Carmichael admitted that any additional powers are
“something that takes you into the realm of political debate”,
as opposed to the guarantee that he said the Scotland Act 2012 powers offered.
The biggest problem for the anti-independence parties is that, despite all that argument, there is not a single power that they can guarantee will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament if there were to be a no vote. Given the track record of promises from the Conservative Party of “Vote no and get a better deal”, does it really think that anyone in Scotland will argue for, support or believe the joint position of the comrades? When even Alistair Carmichael says that that cannot be guaranteed, it is little wonder that the new comradely alliance is on such shaky foundations.
Independence (Local Income Tax)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government would introduce a local income tax in the event of independence. (S4F-02207)
As Sarah Boyack knows, the Scottish Government has been consistent in its opposition to the unfair council tax. Working with local government, we have brought an end to the era of 50 per cent increases in council tax bills that occurred under previous Administrations, both Tory and Labour.
We are committed to consulting others later in this parliamentary session to develop a fairer, more progressive local tax based on the ability to pay. As we set out in our manifesto in 2011, it is right that that consultation takes place following the referendum, once it is clear which tax powers the Scottish Parliament has at its disposal following a yes vote, to ensure that our tax system at all levels is fair to taxpayers, stimulates the economy and supports Scotland’s public services.
That answer was interesting, because the First Minister did not mention the local income tax, which he mentioned in interviews in newspapers and on radio. Does the First Minister still intend to set his local income tax rate at 3p?
In our manifesto we said:
“Over the period of the next Parliament we will consult with others to produce a fairer system based on ability to pay to replace the Council Tax and we will put this to the people at the next election, by which time Scotland will have more powers over income tax.”
That is a perfect summary from the Scottish National Party manifesto. We tell what we are going to do and we explain the timescale for it. We intend to bring about a change to ensure that taxation in Scotland is based on the ability to pay.
I can count five positions from the Labour Party on whether or not it supports a council tax freeze—[Interruption.] Some people are saying six; it depends which spokesman is speaking. However, I am certain that when we come to the consultation, the Labour Party will be first to bring forward its ideas and contribute positively to the debate, knowing that with independence we will have the full range of powers to allow us to choose the best tax system for the Scottish people.
Will the First Minister promise to keep the local income tax rate a secret until after the referendum?
I promise that we will implement the manifesto commitment that we made, which has served us pretty well with the Scottish people—rather better than the Conservative Party managed.
Football Matches (Alcohol Ban)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Supporters Direct Scotland national football survey finding that 62 per cent of respondents were in favour of lifting the ban on alcohol at football matches. (S4F-02195)
The 2014 national football survey, which was carried out by Supporters Direct Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Football Association, covers several issues, including the ban on alcohol at football matches. Decisions on the matter are informed by Police Scotland, which confirmed that it is not at this stage minded to seek a relaxation of the controls on alcohol at football matches, but is engaging with interested parties in reviewing the matter.
Although everyone in Scotland would wish to ensure that football fans can continue to enjoy matches in a safe and pleasant atmosphere, is it not the case that Scotland has moved on significantly since the alcohol ban was imposed more than 30 years ago, with all-seater stadiums? Is it not time, then, that we reviewed the ban, and would it not be possible to lift it on a trial basis and still maintain the good reputation of our national game?
We are committed to working with all parties to improve the overall match day experience and ensure that football fans enjoy our national sport in a safe and enjoyable environment. Measures such as the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 are having a positive effect on offensive behaviour at football matches, which has reduced by nearly a quarter since last year. However, in both the 2012-13 and 2013-14 reports on the 2012 act, police describe 27 per cent of the accused as being under the influence of alcohol.
As I said, I understand that Police Scotland is not at this stage minded to seek any relaxation of the controls on alcohol at football matches, but it is engaging with interested parties. I know that Jim Eadie will bear in mind the figure of 27 per cent of the accused being under the influence of alcohol.
I have written directly to every senior football club in Scotland and I have met the chief constable, who is an interested party, on this issue. Given the First Minister’s stated open-mindedness on this issue, and the progression that we have seen in the many decades since the ban was introduced, will he consider a pilot project at one ground, with some of the protections that are in place in countries around the world where this change has been shown to work, so that we can see whether this is one way to bring in revenue to the clubs around Scotland?
I will describe to Ruth Davidson exactly what my response was. I said that Police Scotland is not at this stage minded to seek a relaxation. It is engaged with interested parties in reviewing that and we will take the direction of the police.
As I pointed out to Jim Eadie, who asked an identical question, anyone who argues for this change would have to take into account the fact that although the number of offences is falling—which is a welcome sign and has been contributed to by the legislation that has been passed—nonetheless 27 per cent of offences were committed by people who were under the influence of alcohol. That figure should tell us that, whatever the discussions and reviews come up with, we must understand in the approach that we take that alcohol is a major contributor to disorder in society and to disorder and offensive behaviour at football matches.
That is why we take direction from the police, who have said that in their discussions with parties who are reviewing the matter, they have that in mind and will do absolutely nothing that would make the reputation of our game of football any less good than it is at present, nor will they do anything that would affect the experience of ordinary fans at football matches by subjecting them to an increase in offensive behaviour. We are making significant improvements, and we must bear these matters in mind as we move forward.
Before I end First Minister’s question time, I point out to all members that the annual general meeting of the Scotland branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will take place at 1 pm today in committee room 2. You are all very welcome. Sandwiches will be available, but it is too soon to have the honey. I look forward to seeing you there.
Previous
General Question Time