Plenary, 04 Oct 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, October 4, 2007

Official Report 756KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-191)

Later today, I will be holding meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

In May's election, Labour said that we would continue the largest school building programme in Scotland's history by building or refurbishing 250 more schools in the next four years. In the First Minister's party's manifesto, he said that his party would match that school building programme "brick for brick". However, this week, his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning told the people of Edinburgh that the Scottish Government will not fund plans to rebuild or refurbish five ageing Edinburgh schools. What has happened to that manifesto commitment on building and matching us brick for brick?

The Government will match the previous Executive's commitments brick for brick. The major difference is that we will not use the hyper-expensive private finance initiative but will use much better means of public finance. We have already put in an extra £40 million of capital investment across Scotland, over and above what the previous Executive intended.

The First Minister might like to explain to us why the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning simply said that the Government does not have £100 million with Edinburgh's name on it. The truth is that in wave 1 in Edinburgh, Labour built 14 new schools, in wave 2, we built six new schools, but instead of wave 3 happening under the Scottish National Party, Edinburgh is being told to wait. There is nothing on the table from the SNP. In Portobello high school, the classrooms are collapsing. I simply note that the absent friend, John Swinney, urged his party to be pragmatic on funding decisions. Why are children losing out because the SNP will not give the go-ahead for new schools?

I suggest that Wendy Alexander takes some time to read the Unison report of this week that excellently set out the failings of PFI and public-private partnership schemes. Once again, she has come to the Parliament without the advice and information that she should have as an Opposition leader. I have here a letter to the City of Edinburgh Council from the previous Executive, which is dated 27 February 2007, on exactly the issue that Wendy Alexander has raised. It says that any funding decisions for Edinburgh schools

"will be for after the election and in the context of the next Spending Review."

I know that Wendy Alexander is new to the job, but if Labour is not going to continue to let the people down—as she put it—she had better come to question time armed with facts and figures. It is one thing to let people down in government; Wendy Alexander is letting them down in opposition.

Let me come armed with the facts and figures, which are that the previous Government built in excess of 300 new schools. You said that you would match us brick for brick, but your Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has said no to Edinburgh.

Use full names, please.

There were 14 new schools in wave 1 and six new schools in wave 2. We told the City of Edinburgh Council to come back for wave 3 after the election. The council came back and you said no. You said that you would match our commitment on the 250 schools. Where are they?

The previous Executive, which most certainly was not a Government in any sense, made its position exactly clear. There was no such commitment to the City of Edinburgh Council, which incidentally has been left in financial crisis as a result of the actions of a Labour administration.

Final question, Ms Alexander.

If Edinburgh is not to get five of the 250 schools that we promised, why is it that parents in Aberdeen find their SNP-led council now proposing to close 22 city schools and closures are proposed in West Dunbartonshire? The SNP promised to put schools at the heart of communities, but instead of building schools as it promised, it is now shutting them down all over the country.

The budget of the Scottish Government has doubled in the past eight years. The SNP has known since March that it will have more than £32 billion next year. Let us recall that when Donald Dewar had half that sum of money, he gave the go-ahead to rebuild every secondary school in Glasgow. Children are now benefiting from that, but you are shutting schools instead. [Applause.]

Order.

Let us get back to the specifics of Wendy Alexander's question. I will put the letter in the Scottish Parliament information centre today and every member will know that there was no commitment to the City of Edinburgh Council from the previous Executive.

What has been Wendy Alexander's priority in three weeks as Opposition leader? It has not been more money for schools, hospitals or the police; it has been more money for the Opposition leader. Her new adviser, Professor Arthur Midwinter, is concerned that the SNP will not have enough money from the spending review to fulfil our commitments. Wendy Alexander is worried that she will not have enough money to pay Arthur Midwinter. Wendy Alexander apologised on behalf of Jack McConnell to the Labour Party conference. Perhaps she would now be better to apologise to the Scottish people for eight years of failure from the Labour Party.

I will allow one brief final supplementary, Ms Alexander.

I respectfully suggest to the First Minister that it ill becomes somebody who sloped off to Westminster, leaving this Parliament for a bigger pay packet, a bigger pension, bigger expenses and bigger allowances of every kind, to decry the same for this place.

However, the issue comes down to the people's priorities and children and schools. We promised 250 new schools. You promised to match us brick for brick, but all over the country you are proposing school closures and refusing to match us brick for brick. You are saying no to Edinburgh, in the words of your own education secretary.

The letter will be in SPICe this afternoon and, yet again, Wendy Alexander will have some explanations to give. We will match the previous Executive's commitments brick for brick. We will do so not through the hyper-expensive funding mechanism of PFI and PPP but through people's investment—do not line the pockets of private enterprise, invest in the people's priorities. I have here a copy of Wendy Alexander's speech apologising to the Labour conference for a party that has lost touch. I have obviously touched a raw nerve in expressing the view that Wendy Alexander has put forward a spending commitment for herself and her office. Perhaps the best way to employ staff in her office is not to sack the people she already has.

I am sorry that I find myself still having to remind members that they should not refer to other members directly in the second person but should refer to them using their full names. Sadly, I still have to remind them of that.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-192)

I have no plans to do so at present, but I suspect that I might be meeting him on the campaign trail.

Scotland currently has 16,261 police officers on the payroll. When will we have 17,261 police officers on the payroll?

We will fulfil our commitment to putting the equivalent of 1,000 extra officers in the communities of Scotland. We will set out our plans to do so, as we stated on page 58 of our manifesto, in the Government's first budget for Scotland, which is to be published this autumn.

When it comes to verbal smoke and mirrors, Alex Salmond and Gordon Brown are two peas out of the same pod—one promises to send home troops who are already back home and the other pledges more police officers by recycling those who are already recruited.

The Scottish National Party manifesto of May 2007 said:

"we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1,000 more police … We want to see these new police officers becoming part of the fabric of communities".

During the election campaign, Alex Salmond said to the annual conference of the Scottish Police Federation:

"It's top of the public's concerns and should be top of the budget priorities".

I ask the First Minister again: no ifs, no buts, no maybes, when will the Scottish Government produce 17,261 serving police officers on the payroll?

As Annabel Goldie has just helpfully quoted, we will set out those plans in our first budget for Scotland and there will be the equivalent of 1,000 extra officers in the communities of Scotland. Annabel Goldie cannot really quarrel with that because she shares my disillusionment with the previous Administration for increasing police numbers but reducing the number of police who were available for service on the streets and in communities of Scotland.

I am disappointed with Annabel Goldie's tone. Only 40 days ago, she released a press statement boasting of 100 days of success and claiming for the Conservative party the credit for all the achievements of the SNP Government. What has happened over the past 40 days?

In the aftermath of David Cameron's speech, he was caught saying to his wife, "I love you, babe. I'm knackered." Annabel Goldie, I am not sure that I love you any more but, certainly, the Tory party is knackered.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-193)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of wide concern to the people of Scotland.

I give the First Minister one last chance to stop breaking his promise on police numbers. The Scottish National Party promised 1,000 more police—not police equivalents. Can he confirm that his answers today mean that that promise will now be met by rebadging, renaming and reshuffling police officers who are already employed?

As we said on page 58 of our manifesto, in the context of our first budget for Scotland, we will set out our commitment to putting the equivalent of 1,000 extra officers on the streets and in the communities of Scotland.

I know that some folk in the chamber think that the word "equivalent" might be some sort of weasel word. I have to accept that, in parliamentary answers, people compare head counts to equivalents. I have come across one from this year that does exactly that. It was issued on 12 January 2007 by Cathy Jamieson, who was then the Minister for Justice.

The important thing for communities in Scotland is to have police deployed on the streets and in communities, not in back offices and bureaucracy, where the Liberal Democrats left them.

Last week, the First Minister's Cabinet Secretary for Justice was asked a similarly straightforward question on television. The question was, "How many police will there be?" Quoting from the transcript, I can say that he replied, "Er, um, er, um. I find that, actually, a rather silly question. The number will, you know, be whatever that will be. Whether the number will be 16,201 or 16,222, I don't know."

However, the SNP manifesto knew. It said that the first budget would have 1,000 more police. It said that the plans were to employ 1,000 additional officers. It said that they would be new police officers. The officers would be employed, they would be new, they would be additional and there would be 1,000 of them. The First Minister has confirmed today that none of that was true. Why has that promise been changed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice? Why has that promise become rebadging, renaming and reshuffling existing police? They are not new or additional; they are already employed. Is this the biggest backtrack that the First Minister has yet devised?

That is a bit rich, coming from a party that has rebadged and renamed itself several times. Only a few minutes ago, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice stated that our plans will show our intention to increase police numbers—a point that was missing from Nicol Stephen's question. Nicol Stephen helpfully quoted our manifesto commitment for our first budget for Scotland. I hope that, when we publish that budget for Scotland, we will enjoy the support of the Liberal Democrats.

Talking about the matter earlier, Jeremy Purvis said that the Government was in purgatory. I would rather be in purgatory than in limbo, which is where the Liberal Democrats are. They are not going up in the coming election; they are going down.

Before I allow a couple of supplementary questions, I am sure that the chamber will wish to join me in welcoming to the public gallery Mr Eric Tomas, the President of the Brussels Regional Parliament, who is accompanied by the clerk of the Parliament, Mr Serge Govaert, and a delegation of cross-party members from its parliamentary corporate body. [Applause.]

Last week, the health ministers announced that the Government will end the provision of cleft-lip and palate surgery in Aberdeen and centralise those services in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Given that loss of local access and the commitments that the First Minister has made on such matters, how will those changes lead to better services for the 220 patients and their families in Aberdeen and the north-east?

The commitment remains to have all aspects of dealing with cleft lip in Aberdeen, apart from surgery. There were only 15 cases of such surgery in the past year, and there is solid medical advice that it is in the interests of patients that there is specialisation in the service.

Of course, in many other services in the health service throughout the country, as the Government has demonstrated, the commitment should be to local provision, as in the case of the accident and emergency units at Monklands and Ayr hospitals. People in north-east Scotland, like people in central Scotland, will welcome the commitment of the Scottish National Party to a locally delivered national health service.

The First Minister will be aware of my written parliamentary question about whether bluetongue has reached Scotland and the answer that I received from Richard Lochhead:

"I shall reply to the member as soon as possible."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 2 October 2007; S3W-4394.]

Will the First Minister today tell Parliament and Scotland's farmers whether bluetongue has reached Scotland? If he cannot tell us whether the disease has reached Scotland, will he tell us why he cannot give a clear answer to the question?

Bluetongue has not reached Scotland, but our rural directorate maintains extreme vigilance in respect of the dangers of that animal disease. On this issue, as in dealing with the consequences of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, I refer John Scott to the excellence of our rural directorate and veterinary services in maintaining animal health and welfare. We have an enormous amount to be proud of in the way in which our services deal with such challenges. The Parliament should unite to keep such diseases out of Scotland and support our farmers and rural communities to the maximum extent.

I advise the First Minister of the anxiety and anger of my 1,800 constituents who belong to the South Nimmo medical practice in Airdrie. Does he agree that it is wrong that that practice will be merged without the consent of patients; that it is unacceptable that NHS Lanarkshire has failed to consult and listen to patients; that those actions are a clear breach of the Government's commitment to listen to patients; and that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing must, therefore, use her ministerial powers of intervention—which she has demonstrated her willingness to do in the past—and act today to protect the interests of my constituents by listening to them about the type of general practitioner services that they need and want?

As Karen Whitefield knows, those are rightly matters for NHS Lanarkshire. It is a health board matter.

No, no, no.

Yes, it is. However, the concern that Karen Whitefield raises is recognised by the Government, which is why we are introducing measures to increase the accountability of health boards not just in her constituency but throughout Scotland. I hope that when we introduce those measures we will have her enthusiastic support, as I think that we did when we introduced the measures to save the accident and emergency unit at Monklands hospital.

---

Community Reparation Orders

To ask the First Minister, in light of the decision to end community reparation orders, what the Scottish Government's plans are to ensure that perpetrators of crime are required to give something back to communities affected by antisocial behaviour. (S3F-200)

Community reparation orders in their current form proved unattractive to courts during the pilot and were little used. The Government wants to give courts access to effective sentencing options that include payback to communities. Community service orders are available and widely used across Scotland, allowing courts to order offenders to carry out payback to local communities. Offenders can also be ordered to pay compensation to victims. We will announce further plans in the area as a key part of our review of community penalties, which will report later this year.

On 16 May, the First Minister promised:

"The days of Scottish Government imposing its will on the Parliament are behind us, although I daresay that there might be days in the near future when I come to lament their passing."—[Official Report, 16 May 2007; c 25.]

Given that the Government has clearly imposed its will on Parliament by scrapping community reparation orders without consulting it, will the First Minister apologise for the apparent oversight and instruct the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to keep to the principles that the First Minister set out when he accepted his post?

CROs are available only in pilot form in three areas of Scotland, and it is clear from the independent evaluation of that pilot that they are not being used. For example, in one of the pilot areas, Dundee, only one order has been made in the past 15 months. We can contrast that with the use of community service orders, of which there have been 6,000 this year, and other probation orders that have payback attached to them, of which there have been 2,700.

The member should look at the available evidence and agree with the Government that there are better ways to achieve our shared objective of protecting our communities—something, incidentally, that the Executive that he supported singularly failed to do.

Does the First Minister agree that reparation schemes should form part of a range of community sentences and should be looked at during the on-going review? Surely the scrapping of community reparation orders prior to the conclusion of that review is unhelpful in building confidence in community sentences, and surely more work should have been done to increase the uptake of the orders by sheriffs, rather than scrapping them with no alternative in place.

If we run a pilot and the independent evaluation says that the CROs are little used—in Dundee, only one order has been used in the past 15 months—then we should start to stress community service orders, which are available and widely used, and other ways of compensating victims. There is no point in running a pilot exercise if we refuse to accept the clear evidence that comes from it. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice brings forward our proposals for community sentencing, I look forward to substantial support from Margaret Smith for things that will work to make our communities safe as opposed to pilots of orders that were little used in the courts.

Is the First Minister aware of concerns about the high level of non-compliance with community service orders, and is he prepared to come back in short order to the Parliament to provide reassurance that community service orders will be complied with and that the appropriate enforcement action will be taken when the orders are breached?

Yes.

---

Terminal Illness

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take to improve the care provided to terminally ill people. (S3F-199)

The national health service and the voluntary sector have a significant track record of achievement in the development of palliative care in Scotland.

People with terminal illnesses need well-designed, integrated services that address their particular needs and wishes. That is why we have highlighted the importance of those services in our document "Better Health, Better Care". We will use the outcome of our national discussion to identify priorities for improvement so that we can build on existing good practice. Key to that will be the mainstreaming of ideas and initiatives from the voluntary sector when they are valued by patients and have demonstrated their effectiveness and sustainability.

As the First Minister knows, palliative care is still in woefully short supply throughout the country. Given the years of neglect and disgracefully low levels of funding by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration, which the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh highlighted earlier this week, will he consider implementing a national strategy to ensure that all health boards improve specialist training and multiprofessional approaches to reduce the time that patients spend in acute hospitals and that health boards provide the palliative services that are needed to improve the quality of care, for which families and patients are calling?

All health boards are being required to examine their palliative care services. I said that we have highlighted that as a subject for improvement in "Better Health, Better Care". We will step up efforts to identify variation in practice and to raise performance standards throughout the country to those of the best-performing boards. We also want to ensure that the benefits of palliative care are available to all patients who face a terminal illness. That will build on the important lessons that we have learned in Scotland in working with cancer patients.

Why has the First Minister's Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing not intervened to prevent the proposed transfer to the private sector of places for the care of elderly patients with high levels of support needs from St Margaret of Scotland hospice in Clydebank, which faces an uncertain future as a result of that proposal?

Because that is a matter for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. I am sure that Des McNulty, like other Labour members who have suddenly discovered their concerns about the actions of health boards throughout Scotland—whose members they appointed, incidentally—will join us in looking to make health boards more accountable to local people in his constituency and in every constituency.

I welcome additional support for palliative care services, especially in areas such as my constituency, which has no hospice. However, is the First Minister aware that at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh yesterday, doctors expressed concern that there remain no reporting mechanisms for incidents when a doctor administers a high dose of medication to a terminally ill patient that has a high probability of bringing about the patient's death? That is commonly known as the Catholic doctrine of double effect. This is a sensitive area in which improvements in end-of-life care could be brought about by a full review of the legal framework for terminally ill patients, in a move to afford more rights to patients who are nearing the end of their lives. Does the First Minister agree that there is no reason why a parliamentary committee could not debate fully, in detail and sensitively all these legal issues?

The right to die is an issue of conscience. The Parliament's Health and Sport Committee has every right to investigate these matters, which I hope it will do. The member raises a difficult and sensitive subject. The cabinet secretary has undertaken to write to him to try to satisfy him that, by reviewing hospice services, the Government is addressing these important matters.

---

Tobacco Sales

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government intends to ensure that the raised age limit on buying tobacco is enforced. (S3F-203)

There are estimated to be around 23,000 smokers in the 16-to-17 age group. We estimate that raising the permitted age for purchase of tobacco products will save 350 lives a year in the long run and save the national health service £3.8 million a year. The measure will be just one part of our five-year smoking prevention action plan, to be published next spring.

Compliance with the raised permitted age for purchasing tobacco products is a key matter. The Minister for Public Health, Shona Robison, met representatives of the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards yesterday to hear first hand about experience in enforcing age-restrictive laws, including on tobacco. She will also meet retailers next week to hear their views on tackling underage sales.

I am surprised that the Minister for Public Health met the bodies to which the First Minister referred only yesterday. When the minister gave evidence to the Health and Sport Committee on 12 September and was asked how she would give effect to the relevant order, she said:

"We will certainly hit the ground running."—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 12 September 2007; c 41.]

However, on Monday, the very day on which the measure was introduced, the Federation of Small Businesses was distinctly uneasy about the impact of the change on its shopkeeper members. ASH Scotland seemed not to be any the wiser as to how the new regulation was to be enforced. The British Retail Consortium expressed doubts about 18-year-olds knowing how the law had changed.

It therefore appears that the minister, rather than hitting the ground running, has yet to meet the relevant bodies that would ensure that the measure is properly enforced. I therefore ask the First Minister again how, as a matter of urgency, he will ensure that this important measure is enforced.

As I said, the minister has met trading standards officers and she has a programme of planned meetings.

Test purchasing is important. STV did a test-purchase exercise when the legislation came into force. That exercise—admittedly done by a television channel—identified significant enforcement problems, which the minister is addressing, but it also showed that all the retailers knew the law and that all were displaying the statutory notice. That indicates to me and, I hope, to members that the objective and the plan that the minister is pursuing to ensure that we enforce the law should be the priority if we want to deliver the change in behaviour that every member wants there to be.

Of course, all members welcome the raising of the age at which cigarettes can be legally purchased to 18, but will the First Minister, having referred to 16 and 17-year-olds who are addicted to cigarettes and may now illegally try to purchase them, say what measures are in place to support those young people?

There is a £2 million budget for smoking cessation practices this year, which has been prioritised to younger people. To drive forward compliance and in order that people can prove their age, the Scottish Government has invested in the Young Scot national entitlement card, which is an accredited proof-of-age card that is available free to all Scots under 26. Therefore, with respect to smoking cessation—Christine Grahame has done substantial work in that field—and enabling the law to be enforced, the minister and the Government have hit the ground running.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—