Plenary, 06 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, September 6, 2007

Official Report 698KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-113)

I welcome Cathy Jamieson to her place. Later today, I will meet officials of the National Farmers Union and other representatives of rural Scotland to discuss pressures on the Scottish livestock industry as a result of rising cereal prices. I will also make a speech to the Scottish Confederation of British Industry in the great city of Glasgow.

Oh no.

I wish the First Minister well in those discussions.

I want to focus on a few points, following the short debate in the chamber yesterday, when we heard quite a lot about the limitations of minority government. Although I accept that the First Minister will require a parliamentary majority for legislation, a range of manifesto commitments' delivery would not require a parliamentary majority.

Will the First Minister keep his manifesto promises to provide £2,000 grants for first-time house buyers, to end public-private partnerships, to freeze council tax and to reduce class sizes? Does he require legislation to deliver any of those commitments?

The SNP is going to work through all of its manifesto commitments over the four-year term of this Administration.

Yesterday, I was struck by the negative response that Cathy Jamieson gave to the Government's programme—an approach that was shared by the other parties. I had to contrast that with the response from outside this chamber. While Cathy Jamieson was saying that the programme contained very little, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Rape Crisis Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland were welcoming the legislative programme and looking forward to productive communication as this Government implements its manifesto over the next four years.

There might have been some selective quoting of yesterday's debate. I said, on record, that there were things in the programme that we welcome and on which we would work with the Government—indeed, a significant number of things came from work that was commissioned by the previous Executive.

To make things slightly simpler for the First Minister, let me pick one of the manifesto pledges of which I spoke earlier. His manifesto was clear that first-time home buyers across Scotland were to get a £2,000 grant. Will they get it? Yes or no.

We will be addressing the housing crisis in Scotland. [Interruption.]

Order.

This autumn, we will publish our proposals. That crisis was left to us after eight years of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration.

Cathy Jamieson says that I quoted selectively. However, the Labour Party's acting leader has been quoted as saying that she "blasted" the programme—she says nothing in the article that is before me about all the things she welcomes. The contrast between the negative attitude of the Labour Party and the positive response of the people of Scotland could not be clearer.

The tens of thousands of people in Scotland who are currently in housing crisis as a result of the failures of the previous Administration will welcome the SNP's proposals when they are published this autumn.

I am sorry that the First Minister was not able to answer that fairly straightforward question.

Another of the SNP's pre-election commitments was to scrap PPP. On 14 August, however, John Swinney said:

"We said before the elections that PPP could continue as one of several delivery options open to public sector bodies."—[Official Report Written Answers, 14 August 2007; S3W-2573.]

On "Newsnight" last week, Alex Neil said that, within the next three months, the SNP will announce detailed plans for getting rid of PPP. What is the First Minister's view of that? Is PPP being scrapped—mebbes aye or mebbes no?

We will bring forward a range of options that will, as I said during the SNP election campaign, crowd out PPP by offering better mechanisms to fund the capital stock of Scotland.

Cathy Jamieson must be aware of the published research that shows the huge obligations that have resulted from her addiction to the private finance initiative. During the past few weeks, we have seen the new leader of the Labour Party divorce her policy from that of the acting leader and welcome our proposal that will bring prisons back into the public sector instead of taking the prison service down the PPP route. Given all that, I do not think that PPP is a particularly good area for Cathy Jamieson to be discussing.

Three-nil to Cathy.

Order, please.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-114)

I will meet the Prime Minister as soon as possible, although I am tempted to call him the First Lord of the Treasury after what I read about what he might call the Scottish Government.

That is the least of the First Minister's worries.

The Scottish Conservatives are committed to building the prison capacity that Scotland needs to contain those whom the courts decide should be in jail. In contrast, the First Minister's proposals to give burglars, muggers and others the softer option of community sentences shows that he is clearly more interested in emptying our jails than in protecting the public. When it comes to tackling crime, the public wants prisoners to be in prison; it does not want convicts in the community. Does the First Minister have the political will to build another prison if protection of the public demands it?

Annabel Goldie must be aware that within the first 100 days of this Administration, we made decisions about the prisons estate that had been awaited for as many years as I can remember. We decided to back away from the Labour Party's privatisation plans, which would have left us with a higher proportion of prisoners in the private sector than occurs in the state of California. We also made the welcome decision to build a state-of-the-art prison in the north-east of Scotland to replace the Victorian facilities in Aberdeen and Peterhead. I would have thought that Annabel Goldie would find much to welcome in our rapid and decisive action on the prisons estate.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice recently cast a slur on the prison staff at HMP Kilmarnock—a prison that is recognised for dealing with offending behaviour and combating addiction—by suggesting that officers are vulnerable to bribery and corruption. Given the First Minister's comments yesterday about that prison, it is disturbing to think that he backs Mr MacAskill. The truth is that the First Minister and his party are openly dogged and dogmatic in their prejudice against the private sector, whether it be in prisons, the health service, or any of our other public services. Will the First Minister reconsider his attitude to the private sector and apologise for his cabinet secretary's unfortunate comments?

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice was pointing out that prison officers in the private sector are unfortunately very low paid, in many cases. I am sure that they would agree because they have made that point to me on a number of occasions.

We are not dogmatic in our approach to politics; we are pragmatic, as we indicated yesterday. I challenge Annabel Goldie to find just one representative of the Scottish Prison Officers Association—the organisation that represents our prison officers—who would advocate that we should go down the privatisation route that the Conservative party still advocates, but which has now been rejected by the incoming leader of the Labour Party.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-121)

The Cabinet will discuss a wide range of issues of importance to the Scottish people.

Yesterday the First Minister announced a proposal to give every patient in Scotland an individual waiting-time guarantee. Will that guarantee be legally enforceable?

We will consult on the nature of the legislation, as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said yesterday.

The plan is to have a guarantee that is meaningful rather than one that is meaningless, which was the state of play under the previous Administration. Even Nicol Stephen must remember the scandal of the hidden waiting lists, the existence of which was denied by the Labour Party. People suffered the frustration of having guarantees and guidelines that meant nothing. I would have thought that Nicol Stephen would join the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing in looking forward to productive discussion on our welcome proposals.

Why is the position not clear cut? Why is the SNP so confused on the issue? The First Minister's manifesto said that the waiting-time guarantee was to be legally binding. Yesterday the Deputy First Minister said that that was just a detail and that she would have to think about it. Today the First Minister says that he will consult. Is not it the truth that the SNP made the promise because it sounded good—it was a great soundbite?

The reality is now clear. The SNP's proposal will mean American-style litigation in Scotland's health service, with a lawyer by every bedside, and it will result in health service staff spending time in the courtroom rather than the treatment room. How much money will health boards have to divert from the treatment of patients to prepare for the legal onslaught from our First Minister? Will final decisions on treatment be taken out of the hands of doctors? Will clinical decisions by Scotland's doctors now be influenced by the shadow of Scotland's lawyers?

Nicol Stephen could not be accused of self-interest in his attacks on Scotland's lawyers.

The system that we have proposed and put out for genuine consultation is based on the system that is used in the Norwegian health service, where it works extremely well. I do not know whether Nicol Stephen has managed to have a look at the Norwegian health service, but I advise him to do so before he dismisses the option of having in our health service waiting and delivery times that are meaningful to patients. Our initiative is patient centred—it puts the patient first.

As far as having time to do things is concerned, we have had an electoral test in Nicol Stephen's area. The council by-election in Aberdeen resulted in an SNP gain, with the Liberals coming third—although Alison McInnes said that the Liberals were denied a famous victory. With optimism like that, Nicol Stephen should—[Interruption.]

Order.

I will take a supplementary from Margo MacDonald.

I ask the First Minister for a reply to the questions that I posed to his deputy yesterday, but which she forgot—by accident, I am sure—to answer.

Edinburgh's situation in relation to the schools programme points to the unsatisfactory nature of the funding stream for the capital city of Scotland, which provides the services that we all expect for the rest of the country. Will the First Minister give me an undertaking that he will give serious consideration to the introduction of capital city funding? When he next meets the Prime Minister, will he tell him that it is just unfair that Edinburgh tenants, who chose to stay with the council rather than transfer their stock, have a burden of debt that Glasgow tenants no longer have?

The distribution formula for local authorities is always kept under review to ensure fairness and parity.

Regarding the financial situation in Edinburgh, I heard what was said by one of the Liberal members about the allocation of responsibility to the Labour party. As Minister for Finance and Public Services, Andy Kerr made the claim that the last local government settlement was the best local government settlement in history. The problem with the Liberal member's point is that the Liberals were in coalition with the Labour party when that settlement was agreed.

Productively for Margo MacDonald, the fairness and equity of the local government distribution formula is always kept under review by the Government.

Does the First Minister agree that Edinburgh and every other part of Scotland would benefit from the transfer of powers over Scotland's oil and gas resources to the Scottish Parliament? Will he continue to pursue his worthy campaign for the transfer of those powers?

For the second time in two days, I agree with Alex Neil. In David Cairns's picking a fight with me at the "Offshore Europe" conference, I detected that there is some upset at the suggestion that the people of Scotland should share in our own resources. To David Cairns and others, I say that it is not just in the health service that Norway has much to teach Scotland. We look across the water to Norway and see a capital investment fund of £165 billion, which has been accumulated over the past 10 years. The obvious point is this: when somebody asks Norwegians how long their oil and gas is going to last, they say forever. That fund is available to power forward the Norwegian economy and Norwegian society. O, that we had the same situation in Scotland.

---

Stockline Factory (Judicial Public Inquiry)

To ask the First Minister whether he will ensure that there is appropriate co-operation between the Scottish Executive, the Crown Office and the UK Government in any consideration of a judicial public inquiry into the explosion at the Stockline factory on 11 May 2004. (S3F-116)

The decision on the type of inquiry to be held into the circumstances surrounding the explosion and resultant deaths will be made by the Lord Advocate, as she has sole responsibility for the investigation of deaths in Scotland.

There are three kinds of inquiry that the Lord Advocate can consider. There could be an inquiry under section 14 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which would be held by the relevant United Kingdom department. There could be an inquiry held jointly by Scottish and UK ministers under the Inquiries Act 2005. Or there could be a fatal accident inquiry ordered by the Lord Advocate under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976.

The Lord Advocate has consulted Lord McKenzie, the UK minister who is responsible for health and safety. Yesterday, she met representatives of the Stockline families and Patricia Ferguson. Once she has finished her consultation, she will come to Cabinet to consult me and other colleagues. The Lord Advocate has undertaken to make her position clear by the end of the month.

I thank the First Minister for his response, and I put on record my thanks to the Lord Advocate for the meetings that she held with me and the families yesterday.

The First Minister will know that, because the two companies that were involved in the tragedy pled guilty to breaches of health and safety legislation, it was not possible for all the issues of concern to be aired in court. Does the First Minister agree that a full judicial public inquiry is necessary in order that all the lessons of the tragedy can be learned?

Furthermore, given that some of the contributory factors, such as health and safety legislation and the regulations that apply to the conveyance of gas through pipes are reserved, whereas others, such as building control and the interaction of the various agencies are devolved, does the First Minister agree that the most appropriate way to proceed is by an inquiry initiated by the UK Government working in tandem with the Crown Office to ensure that we send out a signal that, in this country, it is completely unacceptable that nine people should lose their lives just because they went to work?

If there was an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, it would be ordered jointly by Scottish and United Kingdom ministers. Patricia Ferguson makes some strong points about the range that such an inquiry should have, but I think that it would be best to allow the Lord Advocate to complete her discussions and consultations and, after consultation of all concerned, to come to a decision by the end of the month. In addition to what Patricia Ferguson said, I have offered to meet the families and their representatives. I think that all members will join me in welcoming the fact that the Lord Advocate has undertaken to move the process forward and to make a decision in early course.

Does the First Minister agree that the recent Stockline report is one of the most hair-raising reports that members have ever had the misfortune to see? In the further discussions that are taken forward either by the First Minister directly or by the Lord Advocate, will priority be given to dealing with the issue of hazardous processes and plants that is identified in the report?

A range of issues are mentioned in the report, some of which—as Patricia Ferguson rightly said—touch on devolved responsibilities and some of which touch on reserved matters. Given that the nature of the criminal proceedings meant that, although there was a successful prosecution, some of the evidence was not required to surface in the course of the proceedings, I think that all are agreed that an inquiry in public is necessary. The points that have been raised by Robert Brown and Patricia Ferguson indicate that there is a wide spread of support for ensuring that any such inquiry should be the fullest inquiry possible so that it can look at the full scope of all the issues involved.

---

School Accommodation

To ask the First Minister how he will ensure that there is sufficient school accommodation of the correct type for him to meet the promises on class sizes and early intervention and the expectations of parents. (S3F-125)

Within the 100-day programme, we have already taken the necessary first steps to start driving down class sizes in primary 1 to primary 3 and to provide access to a nursery teacher for all children, but we are targeting the most deprived areas first. As well as announcing funding for an extra 300 teachers and for 250 more teacher-training places from August, we have allocated an additional £40 million in capital funding for school buildings to enable councils to plan investment. After 113 days of administration, that is a pretty good record on fulfilling our aims and ambitions for Scotland's school children.

In Perth and Kinross, the deputy director of education has estimated that 12 schools will not, with existing resources, be able to meet the targets. He said that he would need 19 additional classrooms, the additional teachers for which alone would mean a bill of somewhere in the region of £735,000 on top of his budget of £2.1 million for this year. His fear is that the additional financial burdens are so great that classrooms that are currently used for art, music and drama might have to be sacrificed, with consequent damaging effects on children's education. What will the First Minister do to ensure that that does not happen?

The pace and scale of delivery are, of course, dependent on discussions with local authorities and with the universities that will deliver the additional teachers that we need. However, I believe that there is overwhelming support among both the profession and the people of Scotland for recognising that the policy of early intervention and the measures that we have already taken on funding for extra teachers are the best way forward. The substantial support in local authorities and teaching organisations suggests that our approach to consulting on teacher numbers is the right way forward for delivering on one of the Administration's most important commitments.

Will the First Minister tell us why his SNP colleagues on the City of Edinburgh Council were so ignorant of their party's policy on class sizes that they thought it right to close 22 schools and make the implementation of that policy impossible? While welcoming their U-turn—the fastest U-turn in political history—will the First Minister ensure that in the future his SNP councillors have some minimal acquaintance with party policy, or do his councillors believe that the class-size policy, like many other SNP election promises, will never be implemented?

I thought that Malcolm Chisholm would have stayed away from the schools in Edinburgh issue since it is widely known that the so-called hit list was devised under a Labour Administration. As we have already discussed, the budgetary condition of Edinburgh must by definition be the responsibility of the previous Labour Administration or be shared by its Liberal allies in the previous Scottish Government.

I thought that Malcolm Chisholm would welcome the fact that the SNP group in the council took action to stop a schools closure programme. Although as First Minister of Scotland it is not my job to run the schools of Edinburgh, I offer this bit of advice: if a council education convener proposes a programme that is based on the argument that schools are half empty, it is best not to have on the list for closure some schools that are 75 per cent full. The SNP group made the right decision on behalf of the people of Edinburgh.

The First Minister spoke again today about the £40 million in the schools fund that is targeted at areas of deprivation. He will have seen in guidance that was issued by his Government on 10 July 2007 that the funding is

"to be given to projects to enhance and upgrade sports facilities in schools".

He will also have seen that of the £40 million, only 5 per cent is to be allocated to areas of deprivation. Why is only 5 per cent of that funding going to areas of deprivation, which he said today is the priority target of the fund?

The note gives advice to councils about how they should distribute the fund, but the final determination lies with each council. I say to Jeremy Purvis that councils in Scotland now have £40 million more, which is an increase of almost 40 per cent in their budgets for school buildings this year over what they would have had if the Labour-Liberal Executive had stayed in office.

Further to my friend Malcolm Chisholm's question, what assurances has the First Minister had from Steve Cardownie that the SNP group will not do yet another U-turn and propose further school closures, which would make implementation of the SNP manifesto impossible?

I thought that as someone who has considerable experience in the City of Edinburgh Council, as well as in this chamber, as well as in the House of Commons, as well as in the House of Lords, that Lord George Foulkes would welcome the fact that the SNP group had brought some sense and sensibility to what the council was doing.

I know from the member's earlier remarks that he was disappointed not to be invited to the Confederation of British Industry dinner in Glasgow this evening, but he should welcome sound common sense when he sees it in the SNP group in the council.

---

Troops Returning from Iraq and Afghanistan (Health)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to improve health support and provision for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. (S3F-122)

The immediate health-care needs of armed services personnel in Scotland are met by the Ministry of Defence, which provides primary health care, rehabilitation and mental health care through its own medical facilities in Scotland. Military personnel requiring routine in-patient treatment will normally be referred to a national health service hospital, according to clinical priority.

Is the First Minister aware that

"Many veterans have strong feelings of abandonment, the sense of being used and of being forsaken",

that

"One in four is homeless",

and that

"74 per cent of serious crime is committed by ex-forces"?

Those are not my words, but those of Alan Meale—Labour MP and commissioner for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Will the First Minister, for a start, support a veterans charter that would enshrine a very modest right to a dedicated point of contact—say, at council level—to co-ordinate support for veterans in relation to housing, employment, benefits and health?

Alan Meale has written to me on that very point. There is a great deal to be said for his proposals. I discussed part of this issue with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is also the Secretary of State for Defence, after we attended a few weeks ago an event in Strathclyde park organised by a new charity called Forward Edge of the Battle Area, which considers the recreational needs of former service people. Alan Meale made some strong points in his correspondence, and we will look at this important issue extremely sympathetically to find out what contribution the Scottish Government can make to it.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My understanding of the rules governing back-bench supplementary questions at First Minister's question time is that a back bencher gets a supplementary if it involves a significant local issue, which Margo MacDonald's question was indeed concerned with. I was, however, slightly surprised when Alex Neil then got in with a highly political supplementary that was bowled underarm to the First Minister—which, if I may say so, is a rather startling departure for Mr Neil. Presiding Officer, will you clarify the rules on this matter, given that First Minister's question time is very valuable to back benchers?

The rules clearly state that the choice of supplementaries lies with the Presiding Officer. As a result, I have the right to choose whoever it might be, which is what I have done. I also point out that Nicol Stephen's original question was on the issues that might

"be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet".

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—