09/01/2014 Politics Scotland

Welcome back to the Scottish Parliament. It is my birthday, I am

allowed a certain latitude. It is the first session of questions to

the First Minister. Let us cross to the chamber.

Happy birthday. Welcome to this first edition of question Time. Food

banks, broadband and budgets among the subjects that have come up

recently as MSPs question area and of ministers on a range of topics.

Ahead of the main event of the week, First Minister's Questions. He has

his briefing book with him. We know he will be asked about how the

government is handling perpetrators of serious sexual offences and

budgets. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for

the rest of the day. Engagements to take forward the government's

programme for Scotland. The Scottish Government's White Paper compares

Scotland was my growth rate to a selection of independent countries.

If over the past 30 years it was proved that Scots would be better if

we had much the growth of those nations, is that a compelling reason

to vote yes? The reason to vote yes is to mobilise the natural and human

bees Aussies of Scotland to create a prosperous and just society. That is

the compelling reason to vote yes. It is not the compelling reason he

had in his own paper, that is interesting. In the White Paper it

says Scots would be better off if you take the period 1977-2007. We

asked the financial scrutiny units to look at the last 30 years for

which figures are available. The same comparison, examined over the

last 30 years, shows that each and every Scot would be nearly ?2500

worse off. What did make the First Minister and pick the 30 year period

from 1970s Aven- 2007 -- 1977 - 2007? Let us take the most recent

figures, figures which are part of the statistics generally accepted,

and that shows that over the last five years Scotland would be ?12

billion better off if we had managed our own resources than been part of

the London government. ?12 billion is a great deal of money. That could

have been used to invest in the Scottish economy to promote Scottish

jobs, to borrow less, which would have been a good thing, to start the

proceeds of an oil fund like our colleagues across in Norway. To

believe that these resources would not have been used to the benefit of

Scottish society is the most extraordinary belief and as that

information comes forward in the referendum campaign, and people will

see the opportunity to create a more just society for an independent

Scotland. That is so much noise because he did not answer the

question I asked. With respect, his White Paper chose those dates. You

should explain why, given so much of his prospectus is based on an

argument which bears no scrutiny. The First Minister is asking the

people of Scotland to trust his White Paper. It has, however, only

one page on Scotland's finances and projects for just one year. It looks

back to a period which favours the First Minister'scase went over the

last ten years, 20 years, 30 years, the overwhelming evidence is we

would have been worse off. He says, in his own words, we would be ?900

better off but over the last 30 years by his own rationale the truth

is we would be ?2500 worse off, and that is where there are figures.

Where are the price tag on renationalised in the Royal Mail, on

childcare or high-speed rail proposals? No one is suggesting

these are bad things, even in the real world nobody is thinking

childcare and the relevant are bad things, we do think we need to know

how they are going to be for them. Every family in the country

understands that. Do not just tell us what you are going to propose,

give us just one of those price tags and let us see if that is real. No

one would suggest that they were bad things. On the school meals bought

earlier this week Labour would have voted against them anyway. Let us

take any time period that she wants to take. 1980-2011, the UK has

estimated a net fiscal deficit of 3.2% of GDP. Our students

Scotland's resources, North Sea revenue, Scotland would run a

surplus over that period of 0.2% of GDP. That is the year since 1980.

The last five years I have already Gavin Joanne Lamont. It was ?4.4

billion or ?824 per head, that is the amount would be better off if

Scotland had been running its own resources. She says that she does

not think that the White Paper is ambitious enough especially on

things like childcare. It is ambitious because it wants to

transform childcare in this country. That would cost in the

Parliamentary term and hundred million pounds. White Paper argues

that would, though it's because of the revenues that would grow,

increasing the workforce by 6%. If we stay within the UK we will never

be able to afford that because the money will go to George Osborne and

he is not thinking of giving extra money to Scotland, like Margaret

Thatcher before him he is working out how to take money away from

Scotland. As long as nobody finds out. If we are to going look at the

vote this week we presume that the SNP government did not want to see

transformational support for childcare because they voted it

down. Whatever figures see Quartz, he is now no longer defending his

own approach which justified supporting independence in his own

paper. I did not say that the paper was not ambitious enough, I said it

does not match its claims with any figures to make it credible. He did

not answer the question on prices. What the government cannot price the

parliament can. 1.16 million pounds for the Royal Mail, ?1.2 billion for

childcare and no explanation for how they will be paid for. The rail

link, that cannot be priced. For those of us living in the real

world, a shopping list without a price list is just a wish list. By

the First Minister'sone figures, we would have even less money to spend

on these things. The First Minister has asked for us to publish an

alternative to his White Paper. Is it not the case that the real

alternative is called the truth? Order. Let us try again. It outlines

a transformation in childcare, 1100 hrs for three-year-olds and

four-year-olds which will increase participation females in the

workforce by 6%. We point out that that will release to the Scottish

exchequer ?700 million because as people come back into the workforce

they pay income tax and national insurance and VAT and that will

accrue to the Scottish exchequer. At the moment it goes to London, which

is why the fixed budget is difficult to afford these things. She should

know that because she put forward an amendment which could not be

afforded earlier this week. She put forward an amendment costing ?100

million when there was not ?100 million available in either year for

it. In order to try to finance it she said she would not go ahead with

free school meals. She would deprive the people of Scotland of free

school meals in primary one, two and three. I have not even mentioned the

cuts in business rates but they were overtaken by a denial. That was a

fundamental mistake by the Labour Party which will cost them dear. I

accept when I look at the blank CDs of the Labour backbenches, how

worried they were about the votes on Tuesday, let us have an impartial

commentary. Scottish Labour leader still opposed the move on school

meals. Labour find themselves opposing a move welcomed by just

about anyone with anything to say about education and the eradication

of poverty. They are at loggerheads with charities, the teaching union,

Unison, not to mention the Child poverty action group. That is from

the Daily Record yesterday. That sums up her something for nothing

position. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime

Minister. In Scotland, by the sound of it -- not in Scotland. He is too

unpopular. I thought his performance yesterday showed a humour and

self-deprecation that is wholly foreign to the First Minister.

Perhaps he could take note. This week we learned that the head of

historic Scotland left purple after 30 months with a ?300,000 payoff.

This is a huge amount of public money and it comes straight from the

Scottish Government's offers so can the First Minister tell me which of

his ministers were such payment? The agreements in terms of compromise

agreements are settled in the normal way by the civil service, they are

not a matter of political discretion, they are a matter of the

management of the civil servants. As with any other responsible

organisation. I am certain she is not going to seriously argue that

ministers should interfere in a political sense. I take it that he

says that no Minister did sign of this deal nor should have, but why?

The rules on this are clear. As published by the Scottish Government

itself, the state, ministerial clearance must be obtained in

relation to any high-profile cases. By any definition, a quango chiefs

being given a ?300,000 payoff after just 2.5 years in the job is a very

high-profile case and it is one of the long list of payoffs which has

cost this country ?56 million in the last two years. The Scottish

taxpayer is footing the bill for these extravagant golden goodbyes

and they are entitled to some straight answers, so why? Why would

be is not approved by government ministers? Who don't approve it? --

who did approve it. Should someone who is leaving a job after 30 months

be walking away with ?300,000? The settlement agreed by the civil

service, the only justification would be if there was something

seriously wrong with the process which had arrived at that.

Ministerial intervention would be if there was impartiality. I take one

point which may be illustrated the dangers of raising staff matters and

personnel matters in this forum. There is a danger. She gave the

impression the individual concerned had been in post for a short period

of time and ignored the fact that she had been at work for a

generation within the civil servants. You do not just look at

the latest posting. That is why these decisions and agreements and

compromise agreements are best done internally and whether it is

ministerial intervention or from the opposition, that is not the way that

such things should be conducted. The First Minister will be aware of the

news that the ministry has been unable to find a buyer. As a result

115 jobs are under threat including more than two dozen in my

constituency. I would be grateful to the enterprise Minister for

co-operation, but can I ask him to confirm that every effort will be

made to give the staff affected the support they need and well he agreed

to facilitate any reasonable bid today con some or all of the vital

manufacturing roles currently based in Kirkwall. He is the answer is yes

to both questions. Every effort will continue to be mobilised to get a

more satisfactory outcome. Any concerns or ideas that he wishes to

make, our door will be opened to these suggestions. The answer is yes

to both part of his question. In the Herald today, we read the case of a

consultant scientist at St John's Hospital. Doctor Hamilton talked

about an attempt by her employers to gag her about the care provided to

women in the unit in which she works. Doctor Hamilton has written

an several occasions to the Secretary for health to examine her

case, but this has been declined. Will he step in this case and

condemn the use of gagging clauses for NHS staff reading concerns about

patient care and safety? There already has been, this is the heart

of the issue for people, and independent investigation into that

unit. That was taken forward by the consultant psychiatrist at

Nottinghamshire health trust. It was reported in 2012. I will not outline

the full range of the findings, but I will say it was an extremely

satisfactory report on that investigation. So there was an

investigation that took place with a consultant physician of high

standing, outwith the Scottish national health service. There was

no evidence to support the allegations that the mother and baby

unit were dangerous or unsafe. There has been an independent

investigation. In terms of gagging orders, it should be understood, the

Health Secretary has been explicit and wrote to health boards in

September last year that confidentiality clauses are not to

be used to suppress concerns about practising NHS in Scotland. It is

important, I cannot comment on this individual agreement, but the

explicitly referred to the protected issues. He is shaking his head.

Unless he has seen that agreement, he should not dispute this. NHS

Lothian has said protected issues as -- are explicitly referred to in any

agreement. If that is the case, and that is within a compromise

agreement, I am sure he will be satisfied. I will ask the Health

Secretary to look, if he can, these issues are matter between the

individual and the health board, to make sure there is such an explicit

reference to what is protected by law in terms of what people can say.

I hope he will be satisfied. I do not think he should dispute that,

unless he knows that such an explicit reference is not contained

within the compromise agreement. I asked the Health Secretary to check

that matter and I will come back to you on it. To ask the First Minister

what the Scottish government is doing to deal with perpetrators of

serious sexual offences. We brought in the sexual offences act of 2009

to modernise the lover Scotland. We have strengthened the prevention

order and the risk of harm regime. The current criminal Justice Bill

will seek to remove the routine requirement for corroboration. This

is a particular barrier for the prosecution of sexual crimes. The

Crown office has developed a team of expert prosecutors who specialise in

the investigation and prosecution of serious sexual crimes in Scotland.

Police Scotland has improved their investigation rate in other sexual

crimes. They have an external advisory group which is designed to

improve the investigation rate. When she considers that range of

initiatives, she can see that this government has treated this hugely

serious matter extremely seriously. I thank the First Minister for that

response. Serious sexual offences are amongst the worst which can be

committed with dramatic effects on the victim which can last a

lifetime. He believes that the abolition of corroboration will

help. Our host of expert opinion disagrees. What cannot be disputed

is that abolition of corroboration will not help the conviction rate of

local serious offences which do come to court as these cases have already

met the corroboration threshold. I ask him to support the introduction

of a pilot scheme for independent legal advice for rape victims, at

the point that sensitive information is requested. I propose such a pilot

based on the search carried out by rape crisis Scotland who found that

the majority of victims... Can we get a question please? This means

totally irrelevant information is used to discredit the victim and

decrease the chances of a conviction. So whilst the debate on

corroboration continues... Please ask a question. Will he introduce a

similar pilot to help tackle conviction rates? I will ask the

Justice Secretary to look seriously at that question. Can I say to

Margaret Mitchell that she is wrong to suggest that the argument for

corroboration changes based on an increasing conviction rate. She must

know, the argument is that many cases do not get to court because of

the need for corroboration. An exam would be a claim just before

Christmas demanding to know why a serious offences prosecuted in

Scotland. The Crown office had made it clear that the general rule of

corroboration made an insufficient basis on which to pursue a

prosecution. So if you want to be taken seriously on these matters,

you cannot have a situation where cases cannot come to court because

of corroboration and then say something has to be done about

making sure there is justice for rape victims in Scotland. You have

to square the two things. To ask the First Minister what assessment the

Scottish Government has made of the potential impact on the Scottish

economy of a reported additional ?25 billion reduction in spending

planned by the UK Government. We will be making a very serious

examination of this latest threat from George Osborne. The Tory party

don't have any idea about it because their spokesman on TV last night

could give no idea about what would happen of further ?25 billion cuts

in spending. We will do a series examination of that. This

government's vision is founded on a nation with the principles of

transparency and fairness. One suggested attack by the

Conservatives is an attack on young people to throw out housing benefit

on under 25. What assessment can the Scottish Government make of the

potential impact that this Tory plan could have on young Scots? This

includes the young people in Glasgow I represent and 33,000 across the

rest of Scotland who rely on housing benefit. Will he make urgent

representation to the UK Government which will lead to other poverty and

fuel family tensions and exacerbate homelessness? Verdict the concerned

about this latest threat to the welfare system. -- we are deeply

concerned. Let us remember that the rationale for the bedroom tax and

the attack on housing benefit has been a runaway cost of honey we --

of housing benefit in the south-east of England. It was not the position

of housing benefit in Scotland which led to this assault. We will

continue to support the people in Scotland who suffer from these

cuts. I hope that all people in this chamber, if indeed this threat to

housing benefit comes to pass, I hope people do not believe that

--... Did the First Minister see the article by Thai fish caught in the

Scotsman today which said that George Osborne's ?25 billion mistake

will seal the fate of the Conservative party and he's in the

election of the Labour Government? -- Parish Scott. Given that his

whole referendum strategy is based on having a Tory government in

London, how skew the Scottish people when they are faced with that was

bit of a Labour government which will feed energy prices, breast

unemployment -- boost employment, provided resources for a massive

expansion of childcare? Malcolm and I have been around politics for a

long time. I remember his resignation from a Labour government

when he was a minister because they were attacking benefits to single

parents. I think he lasted a year before he realised his dreams had

been treated and he had to resign. The Liberals fate is already sealed.

Kadish got forecasts of the ceiling should be taken seriously because he

is speaking from personal experience. Ed Balls's reaction to

the 25 billion cuts demonstrates the Labour fate. Perhaps that some point

he will tell Malcolm Chisholm what these cuts are going to be and then

Malcolm will have two resign again. To ask the First Minister whether

the Scottish Government considers that schools, pupils and teachers

are adequately prepared for the new National four and five

qualifications. Yes, the Scottish qualities and authority have visited

levels for support for the new qualifications. That includes more

than 5 million of additional funding, extra service days, course

materials for National 4 and 5 qualifications and specific events

for thousands more teachers. We all stand ready to provide more help is

needed to ensure that the new qualifications are delivered

successively. The Scottish seat -- teachers Association told this panel

that they lacked confidence in the new qualifications, assessment and

land are impossible to meet and then as a continuing lack of support

materials. He said it would be wrong to dismiss complaints as ritualistic

morning. But the sake of our young people and the radical reform of our

curriculum, will the First Minister recognise these concerns and take

action? Nobody has dismissed any concerns. I heard the ministers say

the opposite which is why this level of support has been put in place.

Ken Cunningham has said that the preparation and consultation has

been more than he could ever remember well stop that is a quote

from the 3rd of January this year. I am interested in the position of

power quoting teachers unions. If only they had listened to the

teacher unions and decided to support free school meals for

primaries 123. -- primaries 1-3. The Scottish teachers Association also

said, for the future of radical curriculum reform and the future of

young people, please listen to us and let us work together to fix the

problem. Will the First Minister listen to teachers and help fix the

problem and give it was in Scotland the chance they deserve to get

qualifications and educational training and into employment? We

will continue to listen to teachers to ensure they get for their help is

needed and any issues addressed will stop that was the Education Minister

speaking this week on the radio, I think that answers the question. To

ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to

increase childcare provision. As I announced on Tuesday, we will

increase the number of two-year-olds and start to expand childcare among

two-year-olds up to 15% of the total and then to 27% of two-year-olds in

August 2015. That is about 15,000 children. That is an ambitious plan

and goes beyond the claim from this Labour front bench of 10,000

children. 10,000 children. We are expanding to 15,000 children in the

measures announced on Tuesday. I am sure that right round the chamber,

they will give that a warm welcome. I thank him for his answer, but does

he agree that when Save the Children, the EIS, shelter and the

Church of Scotland and the Child poverty action group all say that

free school meals are key measure in tackling child poverty that

politicians of all parties should listen? I'll ready quoted the daily

record. They are right. The Labour Party should accept that as a broad

coalition of people interested in the welfare of children in Scotland

who support the free school meals. They will have two totally reversed

their position sooner rather than later. If they do not, the damage

done to the Labour Party at grassroots level in Scotland, will

perhaps all may be compared with their reliance on the Tory party in

the referendum campaign. In the ridiculous position of Johann

Lamont, reverse what you did, apologise for Tuesday and get behind

the coalition for backing the children of Scotland. That ends the

First Minister's questions. We have come to the close of questions.

Right at the end there, Alex Salmond turned it back on Johann Lamont.

It's time for me to say goodbye. Let us handover to Mike Collard on the

daily politics in London. -- daily politics.

Christian clergyman, I feel that the gospel calls us to preach in a way

that is particularly good news to the poor. This government has not

necessarily been good news to the poor, and that is something we can

debate, but it is not a party political issue. I am happy to

criticise any government that is not good news to the poor. It is not a

party political thing. The idea that the Church should stay out of

politics is one of those cliches. Tell that to Desmond Tutu. It is

absurd. It is a diminished sense of what constitutes politics if you

think that. Let me