First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01630)
First, I welcome Cara Hilton to the chamber and congratulate her on her election. Based on her election literature, I am looking forward to her support at the budget for the key policies of this Government.
If the First Minister’s budget includes a commitment to address the question of the bedroom tax, we will, of course, support it.
Does the First Minister agree with his energy minister, Fergus Ewing, that a freeze of gas and electricity bills is unworkable, or does he agree with his employment minister, Angela Constance, who welcomed the idea?
I welcome Johann Lamont’s conversion to the Scottish National Party budget and I look forward to her support. I thought that her conversion to the council tax freeze was perhaps a one-off, and now I realise that there will be a full-scale conversion of the Labour Party to key SNP policies.
Answer the question!
Mr McNeil, enough.
Let us look forward to that unanimity developing in this chamber.
As has been said, we will consider seriously all proposals to help with household incomes. I have to say, however, that the Labour Party should at some point give credit for the fact that, by the end of the current parliamentary session, the council tax freeze will have saved the average family in Scotland £1,400 in total over the period.
One would think that, having had a fortnight off, the First Minister might have had a think about doing his job properly. [Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister would do well to listen to the lesson of Dunfermline. The people of Scotland want Scotland off pause; they want him to stop obsessing about independence, and for him to do his day job. As a bonus, he might, once in a while, answer a question. I asked him what his view is on the energy freeze, and he said nothing.
Let us look at Nicola Sturgeon’s proposal for a price cut in relation to energy. She said that she would pay for it by moving green charges from the bill payer to the taxpayer: paying Peter by robbing Peter. What she did not say is that the same report that gave her the idea also tells us that breaking up the single United Kingdom energy market could result in higher bills for Scots. Indeed, Citigroup estimates that it would cost the average Scottish family an extra £225 a year. I think that that is a better definition of unworkable. Rather than the bill payer or the taxpayer footing the bill, why will the First Minister not stand up to the big six energy companies on behalf of the people of Scotland and back a freeze?
First, I will address my two weeks off. Along with others, I devoted a huge amount of time during the past two weeks to helping to save Grangemouth, which is a key part of the Scottish economy. I am not quite certain what Johann Lamont’s role was in that, but I thought that her silence was meant to be helpful.
Johann Lamont derides Nicola Sturgeon’s proposal, but that has not been the view of people who are concerned about energy poverty in Scotland. They recognise that taking the energy efficiency schemes and supplementing the energy efficiency programmes that we have kept in Scotland while they were abolished south of the border will not only save £70 a year in electricity bills, but will allow us to have a fuel poverty programme that is better integrated. We believe, and I think that we are right, that we are better having the Government, the third sector and the fuel poverty organisations administer that programme rather than leaving it to the big energy companies.
I had a meeting with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets yesterday and it showed me some figures that are extremely frightening. The regulator—Labour’s regulator—suggests that over the next two winters, we are facing a lack of margin of supply over demand that could result in brownouts and perhaps even in blackouts. That means a lack of electricity supply. One of the things that will happen, if we approach that situation of low margin, is that prices will increase exponentially as people try desperately to get that last kilowatt of electricity.
Two things are necessary if competition in this market is to be applied properly. First, there has to be a surplus of supply over demand so that companies compete to supply people with electricity; and secondly, there has to be transparency in bills so that people can make that choice. That is why the Scottish Government’s proposal to reduce electricity bills, in line with all our other action on household incomes, is a practical step. That is why we have real, thought-out ideas for getting the energy market under some sort of control.
First, on the issue of Grangemouth, the First Minister’s comments were unworthy of the significance of the issue for the people of Scotland. [Interruption.]
Order.
On Grangemouth, my only focus is to ensure that a workforce that has been loyal throughout this period is treated with respect. On that, across the chamber, I am sure that we are agreed.
If the First Minister imagines that what he has given as an explanation of his policy and that of the big six will wear with families across Scotland who are being ripped off day and daily, he needs to go out and speak to people in our communities about their experience.
Let us get this right, because I think that the First Minister agrees that the Tories have got their energy policy wrong. David Cameron says that he wants to move green charges to general taxation; Alex Salmond also rejects the policy and says that he wants to move green charges to general taxation. It would almost seem that Alex Salmond is closer to David Cameron than most of the Tory Cabinet—[Interruption.]
Order. Settle down.
I know that they do not like to hear it.
Who also backs the First Minister’s position? The big six energy companies. Even an ex-Tory Prime Minister, Sir John Major, is more radical than the First Minister. He wants a windfall tax on the energy companies. What does the First Minister want? He wants to give the self-same companies a cut in corporation tax 3p lower than whatever George Osborne sets it at. Once again, why will the First Minister not stand up to the big six energy companies and back a price freeze?
First, it was Johann Lamont who argued that we had spent two weeks doing nothing. I merely pointed out that most people would say that the action that the Scottish Government took, with others, was successful in saving a key part of the Scottish economy and thousands of jobs. That was a reasonable point to make. Perhaps, on reflection, she should not have introduced the subject into this question time.
On the energy bills, I am not certain that Johann Lamont appreciates that the green charges in energy bills are a separate thing from the fuel poverty charges. We think that the fuel poverty charges should be taken into general taxation. That is supported by a number of the third sector organisations that are concerned with these issues because it is a more efficient, fair and equitable way to attack fuel poverty in Scotland. It would also result in a £70 reduction in energy bills, which, by definition, seems rather better than a freeze in energy bills.
We have said that we would consider any proposals and we will consider any proposals, but I do not think that we have had an answer yet to the problem of an energy freeze in 2015 or beyond. What will happen if energy companies, as they are doing now, put up energy bills before the freeze comes into place? What happens if they put up bills after the temporary 16-month freeze? If Labour can explain how it will tackle that issue, I am sure that we will give it the most active consideration.
The Conservative Party’s attitude to the issue has been belated and blasé. To announce a competition report now seems far too late. However, we should remember who created the energy market that we have at present. It was the Labour Party that removed price controls from Ofgem just after 2000. It was the Labour Party that created a market that had the big six energy companies in control.
It really is a bit rich for a party which has opposed every action that the SNP has taken successfully on household incomes, which created the mess of the energy market that we are now in, and which created jointly with the Tories a situation which has left so little capacity that England could be facing blackouts twice over the next five years, to come to this chamber and complain about a proposal from the SNP that everybody agrees is practical and enforceable and which will actually reduce energy bills by £70 a year. Given the new unanimity of backing the council tax freeze and backing our action to save family budgets across Scotland, let the Labour Party back our action to address fuel poverty in Scotland as well.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is now clear that Alex Salmond’s position on the freeze on fuel is argued in the exact same terms as David Cameron and the six big energy companies. What a counsel of despair; we cannot take on those big companies because they will do bad things just now to stop measures being effective in the future. He should stand up to them, not explain away what they are doing to the people of this country.
The First Minister says that he wants Scotland to be a progressive beacon. Let us look at his record. During the banking crisis, he stood up for Fred Goodwin and the bankers. At the height of the Milly Dowler phone hacking scandal, he stood shoulder to shoulder with Rupert Murdoch. Now, as families throughout the country are being ripped off for electricity and gas, he stands with the big six energy companies. Is not it the case that the First Minister, who has cut £1 billion from anti-poverty schemes, does not stand with the families or with the pensioners who are unable to heat their homes this winter? He stands with the energy companies who are ripping them off, by offering them bigger tax breaks than even the Tories are.
From the party that knighted Fred Goodwin, whom Alistair Darling had as a key economic adviser throughout the financial crisis, that is incredible. The central point is that Johann Lamont seems to have forgotten that we in this Parliament do not actually have the power over energy bills. Incidentally, unless I misheard her, she said that there will be a “fuel” price freeze as well. We are talking about electricity prices, as every family in this country knows, and I can tell her that just about every family in Scotland would like this Parliament and this Government to have control over electricity regulation in Scotland, because every family in this country knows that with Scotland’s vast array of energy resources it is an absolute disgrace that we have fuel poverty. Every family in Scotland knows that we have maintained the fuel poverty programmes in the face of cuts from Westminster, and every family knows that a £70 cut in annual electricity bills is better than a freeze that may or may not be delivered, when prices could increase before or after it takes effect.
The day that Johann Lamont includes among her new-found welcome for SNP policies support for the freeze on the council tax, I will tell her something for nothing: we look forward to the day when the Labour Party realises that the best way forward is to take control of the electricity markets and to take energy policy under the control and jurisdiction of this Parliament, so that we can act effectively in the interests of the Scottish people.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01631)
No plans in the near future.
Today is the last day of consultation on police counter closures. When I asked the First Minister earlier this month about the decision to shut a third of police stations to the public, he justified it on the grounds of the number of people who were using them—in other words, on the footfall analysis. When did that footfall analysis take place and were all police stations included?
That was in the proposal. Over a four-week period, a number of stations were surveyed and the statistics were given. The survey was not comprehensive, but the matter is subject to consultation. All of that is in the documentation that was available to everyone three weeks ago. If I remember correctly, that was one reason why I advised members of the Scottish Parliament to do their constituency duty by making representations based on their local knowledge, as indeed they should do.
However, there is also no doubt that, as Ruth Davidson will remember from the survey, some stations that were surveyed recorded just one visit from the public for core police business over the four-week period. It is right and proper that Police Scotland is having the consultation, and it is right and proper that members of the Scottish Parliament and others, including local communities and community councils, make submissions and representations to the consultation.
If the survey has established that some police stations had only one visit on core police business over a four-week period, I do not think that even Ruth Davidson would seriously argue that there should be a police officer or member of staff behind the desk rather than in the community doing effective police work on behalf of the people of Scotland.
The figures that the First Minister has given are slightly at odds with the figures in the Police Scotland internal business case for cutting these services. The internal business case shows that some of the information dates back as far as 2009. That is an important point, because that was before more than 60 stations were shut completely or had their hours reduced, which will inevitably have affected the number of people going to the police stations that were left—the very stations that the First Minister now wants to shut to the public.
Even worse, for some rural stations, a footfall analysis was not done at all—Police Scotland just guessed. It is no wonder that the internal business case says that the accuracy of the returns submitted and the ability to draw significant and accurate data is caveated due to the varying quality of the returns. In other words, police stations are set to close to the public because of out-of-date information that might never have been right in the first place.
The First Minister’s case for closing the police counters was based solely on the numbers. Does he agree that the flaws in the numbers now mean that his case has collapsed and he should save our stations?
The information was freely available three weeks ago, as I said in my first answer to the question by pointing out that the survey had different applications over different stations. That was contained in the documentation. However, that does not alter the fact that a number of stations were surveyed over the four-week period and, of those, some recorded just one visit from the public for core police business. That is in the documentation. I am sorry that Ruth Davidson has not managed to get to that paragraph, but it is definitely there in the documentation.
For the purposes of the consultation, it would be reasonable for any member of the Scottish Parliament—even a member for Glasgow, such as Ruth Davidson—to make proposals and, having looked at the figures in the consultation document, to point out those issues. Ruth Davidson has an eye on public spending, so she would recognise that it would not be the most sensible use of resources to have an officer or member of staff behind a counter in those stations that the survey showed had had only one visit on police business over a four-week period. Would it not be sensible to submit those points to the consultation process? That is exactly the purpose of a consultation.
The proposals come against the reality that, as we are suffering huge budget cuts from Westminster, in Scotland we have chosen to accent the front line. We have more than 1,000 more officers in place in the communities and on the streets of Scotland than there were when we took office. There has been a dramatic decline in police numbers south of the border, whereas in Scotland what is declining is recorded crime—we have the lowest crime rate for almost 40 years. All of that tells us that we can trust Police Scotland to do an effective job on behalf of the communities of this country.
I will take a constituency question from Paul Martin.
On Friday 18 October, eight-year-old Broagan McCuaig was attacked by two American bulldogs in the Garthamlock area of my constituency. I am sure that all members will want to wish Broagan a speedy recovery, but there is much more that we in this Parliament could do. Does the First Minister agree that there needs to be more effective legislation in place to deal with dangerous dogs? Will he agree to meet me and other interested parties to discuss the matter further?
If I may, I will give Paul Martin a comprehensive reply on what is a very serious issue.
I agree with Paul Martin, and the sympathy of the whole chamber will go to Broagan and her family, as she recovers from the ordeal. The two dogs involved in the attack have been put down, and the man and woman who owned the dogs have been charged by the police with offences under dangerous dogs legislation.
More generally, Scotland’s approach to dealing with the problem of dangerous dogs has focused on measures to prevent attacks from happening in the first place. All parties in the Parliament supported the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. We fully support local authorities making best use of that preventive regime. Alongside the dog control regime, there are long-standing criminal laws going back to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that hold to account owners who allow their dogs to be dangerously out of control. The control notices contain a number of conditions on owners and their dogs, including a requirement to keep dogs under control. Breaching a dog control notice is, of course, a criminal offence.
Those are the measures that the Parliament has put in place, in combination with local authorities. I will be very glad to meet Paul Martin and his constituents if that would help to further discussion on the issue.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01632)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
This weekend, the First Minister will be heading to China on his first visit to the country since he snubbed the Dalai Lama on his visit here. The First Minister shamed Scotland with his treatment of the Tibetan spiritual leader when he kowtowed to the Chinese consul general. We are told that the First Minister is heading east this weekend, but we have not been told what he will say on human rights. What will he do differently on his visit to China this time to be clear on human rights while developing economic partnerships?
I will do what I have done on all my visits to China: I will meet representatives of human rights organisations before the visit, I will make speeches and I will make representations. Those are all on the public record, if Willie Rennie cares to look at it. That is a much more effective way to proceed on the matter.
I am not sure whether Willie Rennie wants me to go to China. I am meeting representatives of human rights organisations beforehand, and I have made a number of what some people have said were pretty significant speeches and representations on human rights when I have been in China before, because I think that it is vitally important to have that engagement. It is vitally important for economic reasons, obviously, but it is vitally important anyway. When Willie Rennie tells me what exactly it is in the points that I have made in the past or in meetings with human rights organisations that he objects to, perhaps he will come to the chamber and give me a bit more information to go on.
Perhaps I should take ideas from Mr Rennie as to what he would do if he were in my position going to China next week. Would he go to China at all?
I will certainly tell him that.
Thubten Samdup, the Dalai Lama’s northern Europe representative, said that the First Minister had “buckled” under pressure from the Chinese Government in relation to the Dalai Lama. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister met the Dalai Lama, whereas the First Minister did not. The United Kingdom Government has shown that it is possible to be firm and clear with China on human rights and Tibet while nurturing strong economic links. They were prepared to be firm with the Chinese while working with them.
The last time the First Minister visited China, all he did was give the Chinese Government a book. To send a clear message to China, will the First Minister commit today to meet the Dalai Lama? That is what he could do—if he is listening. Will he commit today to send a clear message and to meet the Dalai Lama at the next possible opportunity?
I will raise the matter of human rights in China. I shall send Willie Rennie a reference from the BBC website regarding what was raised with the then Vice Premier, now the Premier, Li Keqiang, when I was in China. Once Willie Rennie sees that, perhaps he will come to the chamber and retract the suggestion that we did not raise the issue of human rights in our visits to China.
Professor Alan Miller, who I met before previous visits to China, very much agreed with the approach that the Scottish Government took in putting forward our argument about economic progress and human rights going together. I trust that Willie Rennie has examined the speeches in which I made that point. When he sees the exact reference on the BBC website, given what he has just said inaccurately to the Parliament a few minutes ago, he will perhaps have the grace to apologise at a suitable moment for his mistaken remarks.
Fuel Poverty (Energy Prices)
4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to protect people affected by fuel poverty, in light of recent price rises by energy providers. (S4F-01637)
We have invested more than £220 million on fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes since 2009. That is an estimated total net saving to household incomes over the lifetime of the measures of more than £1 billion. In exact terms, there have been 540,000 energy efficiency measures such as draft proofing and loft insulation. We will spend about £0.25 billion over the next three years on fuel poverty and energy efficiency.
I contrast that with the actions of the Government in Westminster because, since 1 April, there is no longer any Government-funded fuel poverty programme south of the border.
The most recent Scottish Government figures show that nearly 30 per cent of households in Scotland are living in fuel poverty. Does the First Minister agree that the fact that the energy companies have, once again, increased prices by an unaffordable amount while wholesale prices have risen by only 1.7 per cent is yet another insult to low-income households, which are continually subjected to the whims of a dysfunctional energy market despite living in a resource-rich Scotland? Does he also agree that that is further evidence of the need for the powers of independence to eradicate fuel poverty in Scotland?
We need a sustainable solution to the problem of energy bills. That is why, with the powers of independence, which John Wilson rightly refers to, we will remove the cost of energy-saving measures and the warm homes discount from household energy bills.
I will point out again what is absolutely essential if we are to get sanity in the market once we have the powers to do so. First, we need a surplus of energy supply over demand so that companies have to compete to sell people energy. Secondly, we need proper efficiency and competition measures in the marketplace.
It is crucial that we recognise that, under the current course of action—the structure of which was set initially by the Labour Party and which has been carried forward by the coalition Government—according to the figures from the official regulator, England is heading towards at least brownouts and perhaps blackouts twice over the next five winters. We have not been in that situation since the three-day week in 1974 but, yesterday, the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets told me that that is the risk if we assume economic growth into its figures. That is an extraordinary position for the security of energy supply.
We have had the Home Secretary talking about Scotland’s security under independence, but the Tory Government cannot even guarantee the security of electricity. One of the benefits that we would have from independence is from the fact that we have a 20 per cent margin of electricity supply over demand—[Interruption.] The Tories should relax. Given the difficulties that England will face in electricity supply, the Government and I have absolutely no intention of turning off the supply. On the contrary, we will be delighted to sell them our renewable electricity.
Public Body Boards and Senior Management (Representation of Women)
5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to deal with the reported underrepresentation of women on the boards and senior management teams of public bodies. (S4F-01642)
On Tuesday, the equalities minister, Shona Robison, will host a summit on women in public life, bringing together a range of stakeholders. That will help to shape further actions from the Scottish Government to identify ways to address the barriers that prevent women from coming forward and from being appointed to boards.
We believe that at least 40 per cent of public board membership should be female. The legislative competence for introducing quotas currently lies with Westminster, as Jackie Baillie well knows. However, Shona Robison is working on seeking a section 30 order to request that those powers be transferred to the Scottish Parliament so that we can address the issue.
In the new atmosphere of consensus, I look forward to Jackie Baillie joining the mainstream and supporting that transfer of powers to the Parliament.
As ever, I thank the First Minister for that response. Increasing female representation on boards and in the senior management teams of public bodies is a shared ambition across the chamber. However, I have to say that it is disappointing that the Scottish National Party and the First Minister default to their usual position that they do not have the powers, because there are things that we can do.
Can we assume that the First Minister supports his own Government’s diversity strategy, which was launched five years ago and includes a target—[Interruption.]
Order. Ms Baillie, one moment. Will Mr Smith and Mr FitzPatrick settle down, behave themselves and allow Ms Baillie to ask the question?
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Can we assume that the First Minister supports his own Government’s diversity strategy, which was announced and launched five years ago and which includes a target of 40 per cent of applications for board appointments coming from women? Will he tell us why his Government failed to reach that target, with the number of applications short by something like 25 per cent, given the fact that he already has the powers to do something about it?
I am sorry that Jackie Baillie thinks that I default to a position just because it is true. I default to the truth.
I look forward to Jackie Baillie supporting the section 30 order. I say that I think that we need the power in the context of wanting to see the 40 per cent target achieved, but Jackie Baillie does us less than justice on the progress that has been made. I have in front of me the number of applications and the number of new appointments, which Jackie Baillie rather slid over in her interpretation.
The percentage of female applicants for boards rose from 29.8 per cent in 2006-07 to 34 per cent. I accept that that is not 40 per cent, but it represents progress. That was the figure for applications. [Interruption.] I am coming to the number of appointments right now; I am glad that the point has been raised. The percentage of females who have been appointed has gone up from 35 to 38 per cent. [Interruption.] After Labour’s abysmal record, which we inherited, we are more than halfway to our target of 40 per cent.
Council Tax Freeze (Financial Benefits)
6. To ask the First Minister what the average financial benefit for households is from the council tax freeze. (S4F-01649)
Over the six-year period for which the council tax freeze has been in place, the average band D household has benefited from cumulative savings of almost £680. That same household will have benefited from the extending of the freeze for the lifetime of this session of Parliament by around £1,200.
I thank the First Minister for that answer; I am sure that that information provides much-needed relief for families in Scotland who are struggling with the better together parties’ commitments to continue to squeeze their budgets.
Can the First Minister take some comfort from the commitment that Labour published last week to support the universal benefits that the SNP Government has protected, or does he think that what Labour says in elections is different from what it says in the chamber?
I am trying to reconcile the varying positions of Johann Lamont, who said that she did not say a “something for nothing” society when she did say a “something for nothing” society.
When I heard Johann Lamont say on television on Sunday that she never said that some people get “something for nothing”, I was moved to go to the Labour Party website to find her speech from last year. When I did so, I got the message, “Oops! The page you are looking for cannot be found.”
Luckily, our ever-searching staff had taken a screen grab. Of course, the speech included the phrase:
“Scotland cannot be the only something for nothing country in the world.”
Indeed, so significant was her speech that Johann Lamont actually won an award for it from The Herald—she won the award for political impact of the year for hitting out at Scotland’s “something for nothing” culture.
On one hand, we have Labour’s position in the by-election, which was to support the council tax freeze. Then we have Labour’s position with Unison, which is to oppose the council tax freeze. Last year, Labour talked about “something for nothing”; now that has been eradicated from the Labour Party website. I say to Christina McKelvie that I think that the problem is that Labour has been caught saying one thing in public and then saying another thing in public.