Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00511)
Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
We all continue to be shocked by the revelations that are coming from the Leveson inquiry about phone hacking, pay-offs and the inappropriate relationship between journalists, police and politicians. It would be naive to dismiss those as London practices that stop at the border. What steps are being taken to learn from the Leveson inquiry? Did the First Minister discuss the matter when he last spoke with the chief executive officer of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch?
A statement was released yesterday on the meeting that I had with the chairman of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch. In terms of meetings with Rupert Murdoch, I think that an open statement, which says what was discussed, is probably a pleasant change from past practice in the Labour Party.
On the serious point and on the Scottish input into Leveson, Johann Lamont should know that the chief constable of Strathclyde Police will appear at the Leveson inquiry later this month, to talk specifically about Scottish police force liaison. I strongly support the police action that has been taken, just as I support the Leveson inquiry itself.
Johann Lamont said that we must assume that there are Scottish aspects to this, but it is important to remember that, although a range of newspapers and newspaper groups was involved in the widespread malpractice in the press that the Information Commissioner reported at the end of 2006—I will gladly place the information in the Scottish Parliament information centre—there were very few Scottish examples or, indeed, English regional examples.
We must be vigilant, and it is right and proper that Strathclyde Police is pursuing the matter and appearing at the Leveson inquiry, but it is also fair to say that the evidence that we have so far is such that that co-operation is the way that we should go at the moment. We stand ready and willing to act, because the criminal law must be upheld, north and south of the border.
Fine words must be tested against the action that we take. We know that the police are not the only people who leak stories to Rupert Murdoch. The first edition of the Scottish Sun on Sunday revealed the date of the referendum—Saturday 18 October 2014—citing a Government source. For the sake of a front-page splash, the date was leaked before the consultation was completed, before the Parliament was told and before the people of Scotland had their say. Has the First Minister, who of course wrote a column in the paper’s first edition, thought about who might possibly have been the source of such a mutually serving leak? What steps has he taken to determine the source of the leak?
We would never, ever encounter a situation in which a Labour politician had a column in The Sun newspaper.
On the serious point, I direct Johann Lamont to my remarks on the radio on Sunday morning. I will quote them exactly. I said:
“It is a possible date, of course, because we said it’d be in the autumn of 2014, but we also said we’re considering a Saturday, as opposed to a Thursday, to increase turnout. But we’re only a month into a three-month consultation. I think the last check I’ve made we’ve got 2,700 responses already, so we’re heading towards perhaps upwards of 10,000 responses to the consultation. Once all these are in and analysed, then we’ll announce what the date will be, not until after the consultation.”
That is what I said last Sunday and that still pertains today.
I am sure that, in the First Minister’s world, that sounds believable, but it is testing credulity to the point of destruction. Just a few weeks ago, I read out the First Minister’s cringeworthy letter to Fred Goodwin, backing the deal that broke the bank. This week, we have been reminded how far the First Minister was prepared to go to accommodate Donald Trump. That did not end well, although apparently, First Minister, he still likes you. I will not embarrass the First Minister by reading out his musings to Rupert Murdoch—or Sir Rupert, as the First Minister likes to address him—but it seems that the First Minister has finally learned that theatre tickets and golf DVDs will not get a reply but a good exclusive will. Despite what the First Minister says, the editor of The Sun says that the date is 18 October 2014. He is so sure that he told Twitter:
“See what odds you can get on 18/10/14. We’re right.”
Is the First Minister saying that the editor of The Sun is wrong?
The First Minister is saying that Johann Lamont is wrong. The position is as I read out a few seconds ago. I do not know that citing Donald Trump is Johann Lamont’s strongest suit at present because, as I understand it, Donald Trump’s ire seems to have been roused because he believes that he was given an assurance by my predecessor, Lord McConnell—although he was not a lord at that stage—that he would block planning permission for the test wind farm off Aberdeen. I have no way of knowing whether such an assurance was given but, if it was, it should not have been, because First Ministers cannot determine wind farm applications in Scotland.
There is a serious issue about renewable investment in Scotland. The front page of today’s Press and Journal cites the thousands of jobs that are being created in the drive towards renewables. I hope that, as we progress that argument against whoever might criticise it, we will have the support of Johann Lamont and her colleagues, even if we cannot count on the support of Lord McConnell.
I have tried to be extremely restrained so far on relationships with newspapers, but I must now read out a quote about the attendance at News International’s summer party. It states:
“At News International’s summer party in London on Thursday night, guests including David and Samantha Cameron drank Moet & Chandon champagne and ate oysters. Labour leader Ed Miliband and shadow chancellor Ed Balls sheltered from the inclement weather in a giant canopy at the Orangery in Kensington”.
Given the enthusiasm among the Labour Party leadership for drinking the champagne and eating the oysters—incidentally, all you get in Bute house is a cup of tea and a Tunnock’s caramel wafer—some people might think that there is more than a trace of double standards emanating from the people’s party.
The First Minister’s restraint is admirable but, in the middle of all that, I do not think that we got an answer. Simply asserting that I am wrong does not dispute the fact that the editor of The Sun says that he is right. The First Minister is trying to make people believe that the exclusive in The Sun had nothing to do with him. His defence is, “It wasnae me and it wasnae just me.” That will not do.
It is said that we can tell a lot about a man by the company that he keeps. [Interruption.]
Order.
What does it say about the First Minister’s judgment if he is prepared to compromise the referendum for Sir Rupert, to compromise our planning system for the Trump and to compromise Scotland’s economic future for Fred the Shred? We all know that Sir Rupert ran with Sunday’s story on the First Minister’s nod. After five years of asking, will the First Minister simply confirm what date he intends to hold the referendum? Just name the date.
I will stick to my position of having the consultation with the Scottish people. I have an update for Johann Lamont; there are now more than 3,000 responses to the consultation. We will consider the responses to the consultation, although we have not had one from the Labour Party yet. I understand that it has submitted a response to the Tory-Liberal coalition Government’s consultation—no great surprise there. The Labour-Tory alliance has continued right through Westminster to this chamber and even to Stirling Council in the past week. We will have the consultation and then we will announce the date, which will be determined by this Parliament in the best interests of the Scottish people.
Johann Lamont’s remark about the company that we choose is extraordinarily rich coming from a Labour Party that pursued a 15-year courtship of News International and only decided that dreadful things were going on after The Sun stopped supporting the Labour Party in politics. That is hardly a position of high principle.
The serious issue for us all is to back the police inquiry and the Leveson inquiry. It is remiss of a party that, according to the previous Prime Minister, knew about these activities in 2007—that is what he said in his House of Commons speech last year—yet still consumed the champagne and the oysters, to now attack a meeting to determine jobs and the economic footprint of Scotland, and at which there was no champagne and no oysters. We have a police inquiry and the Leveson inquiry and, quite rightly, News International has said that it will leave such practices behind. The Labour Party that was prepared to support and court newspapers when it knew about the malpractice is in no position to criticise anyone in this chamber or across the body politic.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00490)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
As the debate on Scotland’s constitutional future grinds slowly on we, as parliamentarians and as a Government, have a duty not only to examine the shape of Scotland’s future but to address the serious problems that are facing our country right now. The First Minister and I disagree on many things, but there is one serious area of policy in which something is universally accepted in the Parliament—that drugs destroy lives and damage communities. The Scottish Conservatives are proud of their part in creating a new drugs strategy for Scotland in 2008, and I recognise the personal commitment of my predecessor, Annabel Goldie, on the issue. What evidence is there that the programmes that the Government has directed in rehabilitation or recovery are achieving results on the ground?
I begin my answer by acknowledging that it would be foolish for any politician to claim success in the battle against drug abuse. In the past year, illicit drug use among the general population of 16 to 59-year-olds has been falling. That is quite clear from the statistics. In 2006, it was at 12.6 per cent, in 2008-09, it was at 10.3 per cent, and in 2009-10 it was at 9.8 per cent. Encouraging information about other aspects of drug abuse is also being reported.
Nonetheless, although drug misuse among young people in Scotland is falling according to the statistics, it is still an enormous problem that requires the joint effort of all members of Parliament across the parties. I have no doubt about that. That is why I welcomed the input of Ruth Davidson’s predecessor on the issue and why I welcome the input of members from across the parties who contribute, along with the Government, to doing what we can as politicians to attack this great difficulty.
I welcome that response and the encouraging signs that we are seeing, but I am sure that the First Minister will agree that the picture that he paints is in no way complete. The national health service figures that were released this week show that the number of babies who are born to drug-abusing mothers has almost doubled in the past four years. As a nation, Scotland spends £28 million a year on methadone treatment, and in prison, which is a closed society in which we would expect to see a degree of control, the number of prisoners who are taking methadone every day has reached a record high, with no attempt being made to reduce intake in the vast majority of cases. In the previous session, the Parliament agreed that a focus on rehabilitation and recovery was the appropriate drugs strategy to pursue. That was the job of Parliament, but to implement the strategy is the job of Government. When will we start to see much more wide-ranging results?
We achieved consensus on “The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland’s Drug Problem”, and I hope that, while being aware of the difficulties, problems and challenges that we still have to overcome, as part of that consensus we do not start to undermine the success that there has been. The road to recovery strategy put methadone in the broader context of care, treatment and recovery for the first time, and the statistics back that up. I have been looking at the most recent treatment figures and can say that the cost of methadone has remained broadly stable since 2006-07. The increase in cost in 2010-11, to which Ruth Davidson alluded, is due to the fact that, for the first time, the Government can report accurately on the supervision fees that are paid to pharmacists. This is the first time that that has been possible.
An issue that came up in the cross-party discussions about the road to recovery was the need for a better understanding of the statistics. Given that we introduced the ability to get a handle on what is happening, it is not helpful to point to something that is clearly the result of the action that we took and somehow describe it as a failure of the road to recovery. In my view, it is one of the successes of the road to recovery, because one of the things that have to be done when tackling any problem is to have an honest assessment of its scale. For the first time, we have the statistics that give us that honest assessment, and that should be welcomed across the chamber.
In the light of the findings of Oil & Gas UK’s “2012 Activity Survey”, does the First Minister intend to have discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the detrimental impact that the United Kingdom Government’s oil taxation policy is having on the economies of Aberdeen and the rest of Scotland?
This is a hugely important issue. The oil and gas industry is indeed a major success story in Scotland. As the latest impact and activity survey makes clear, the sudden unannounced changes in the UK Government’s taxation policy meant that what otherwise would have been an unheralded and unprecedented boom in activity in oil and gas was marred by a fall in exploration activity. Company after company has directly attributed that to the policies of the UK coalition Government.
Knowing that, and seeing the evidence, I hope that the points and policies that we, along with the industry, have been urging over the past year, regarding building in incentives for the exploration of marginal fields and the extraction of additional oil from discovered fields, will feature in the upcoming budget. Any reasonable person would determine that the UK Conservative-Liberal Government’s oil and gas industry taxation policies have not been good for the industry and, far more important, that they have not been good for jobs in Scotland either.
In the light of Angela Constance’s description of youth unemployment as “endemic”, does the First Minister agree with Skills Development Scotland’s decision to offer voluntary severance to about 150 members of staff, including 60 per cent of its key front-line workers in North Lanarkshire? Some 9.8 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds in that area currently claim jobseekers allowance, a percentage that is well above the Scottish and UK averages.
I have often heard Labour members in the chamber criticising the policies and direction of Skills Development Scotland. The reality is that Skills Development Scotland is placing more people on training schemes and is having magnificent success with modern apprenticeships. It has successfully placed 25,000 people in modern apprenticeships this year, which is 60 per cent more than in the position that we inherited in 2007. We should judge Skills Development Scotland on the efficiency with which it delivers its services to the young people of Scotland. That is the key to judging its success.
Frankly, it ill behoves a party that voted against modern apprenticeships in Scotland last year and combined with the Conservative Party to do the same thing again this year to have any commentary on the modern apprenticeships position or on SDS’s excellent work in delivering the magnificent total of 25,000 modern apprenticeships, which give young people in Scotland a job, training and hope.
I am sure that the First Minister is aware that Dunfermline Athletic’s players have been paid only 60 per cent of their wages today because of a situation that relates to cash flow from Rangers. Is he prepared to make representations to administrators on behalf of Dunfermline and other clubs? What steps can the Scottish Government take to assist clubs in that situation?
The answer to the first question is yes. Many of us realised that the developing position at Rangers would have ramifications throughout Scottish football; Dunfermline Athletic is an early instance of that. I will be delighted to meet Dunfermline Athletic to offer any help that the Scottish Government can offer. Of course, matters that the club is directly concerned about will not necessarily be in the province of the Scottish Government’s powers—I am sure that the member understands that fully. Nonetheless, we are delighted to meet organisations that get into difficulties, such as Dunfermline Athletic, to discuss any efforts that the Scottish Government can make to help them with their position. All the clubs in Scottish football are vital and valuable, and we should try to assist them all when we can.
Schmallenberg Virus
To ask the First Minister what steps have been taken to deal with Schmallenberg virus if it spreads to Scotland. (S4F-00492)
I thank Alex Fergusson for raising a hugely important issue. I know that people in his constituency are paying particular attention to it, as wider rural Scotland is.
It is important to emphasise that no cases of the virus have been reported in Scotland thus far. However, we remain vigilant. As soon as the Scottish Government became aware of the emerging disease, it alerted key stakeholders through a conference on 20 January and held a follow-up meeting on 27 January. The Scottish Agricultural College wrote to vets at the beginning of January to alert them to the disease’s symptoms and to encourage the reporting of suspicious cases. As Alex Fergusson is well aware, the Moredun Research Institute has been ready to test samples since 27 January.
I thank the First Minister for his response and for acknowledging the importance of early reporting of any symptoms of the virus.
Last November, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment agreed to establish a strategic management board to oversee veterinary surveillance, which was a main recommendation of the Kinnaird report. Another of the report’s key recommendations was that the board should consider a phased reduction in the number of disease surveillance centres, of which we have eight across the country. Can the First Minister ensure that no steps are taken to reduce the number of disease surveillance centres without the widest possible consultation and an absolute guarantee that the service’s speed and quality will not be adversely impacted by any changes, given the importance of early detection, diagnosis and reporting in combating Schmallenberg virus and other similar diseases?
Yes, I can. Alex Fergusson will appreciate that it is exactly to get that assurance that we are considering the review’s recommendations. He can be absolutely certain that we will ensure that adequate surveillance is in place and is retained for future needs.
This is perhaps an opportunity to get a wider audience for saying that farmers and vets are being encouraged to exercise vigilance and to report suspect cases voluntarily. Testing is provided free of charge by the Moredun institute. That approach is working well. At this early stage of the lambing season, three suspect cases have been reported, but the tests have all proved negative.
Childcare Provision
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to improve childcare provision. (S4F-00496)
The Government has announced a significant investment in early learning and childcare, which includes £4.5 million towards early learning and childcare for looked-after two-year-olds and a further £4.5 million to promote community-based solutions to family support and childcare. That is drawn down from the wider £270 million early years change fund, which will accelerate and prioritise spend in the early years across the whole public sector.
I know from what the First Minister has said that he is fully aware of how important it is to the economy that parents can access good-quality childcare. It enables parents to go to work and it is hugely important in our efforts to ensure gender equality in the workforce.
Recognising that childcare in Scotland is partially controlled by funding mechanisms that are determined by Westminster, does the First Minister agree that one of the most damaging things that the United Kingdom Government could have done is to reduce the childcare element of the working tax credit from 80 per cent of costs to 70 per cent, which will cost the families that rely on it more than £500 a year? Does he agree that, if such a cut is the coalition’s priority, it would be far better for everyone if responsibility for benefits policy was in the hands of this Parliament and Government?
That strikes me as a substantial and well-argued point. I was genuinely surprised by the muttering from the Labour benches. I presume that that is a Tory budget policy that Labour would not have supported if it had come to this Parliament. It has had a substantial impact on working families in Scotland.
I was interested in and concerned by the costs of childcare and day care that were reported on Monday. I had a look at the figures. It is certainly true that the costs for out-of-school clubs and childminders in Scotland are above the English average, but it should also be said that the cost of nursery provision both for children aged under two and for those aged two and over is below the English average, and significantly below it in many cases. We should be aware of that, but we should also be aware that there is a wide divergence in the cost and availability of childcare in various parts of Scotland. We should determine, unitedly, to address that.
I was particularly pleased to see the comments from Malcolm Chisholm MSP after the inspiring early years task force meeting, in which he expressed particular thanks to Harry Burns and others. I am pleased that politicians can unite across party lines on the issue, as we should.
Maureen Watt makes an important point. Perhaps all of us should aspire—as the report this week said—to the situation in the Scandinavian countries, which have by far the highest standards of childcare provision and represent a benchmark. It is a reasonable point to make that Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland all control their tax and benefits policies, and all, of course, are small, independent European nations.
Children’s Hearings System
To ask the First Minister whether the timetable for reform of the children’s hearings system has been changed. (S4F-00503)
No, it has not changed. September is still the target, and indeed the project board agreed yesterday that that target remains achievable. I assure Drew Smith that we will always listen to people on the ground who share our interest in the continued good working of the system and the successful delivery of the reforms, which is the vital thing.
The national convener of Children’s Hearings Scotland was removed from her post at the beginning of December 2011. A week later, I asked the First Minister whether the timetable was on track, specifically for area support teams to be in place in January 2012. He said:
“I can give the assurance that the timetable has not slipped and will not slip”.—[Official Report, 15 December 2011; c 4770.]
This weekend, it was reported that the board, which suspended the national convener, is drawing up contingency plans to retimetable the reform process.
If there is a problem at Children’s Hearings Scotland, the Minister for Children and Young People should account to Parliament for it. However, if there is not a problem, when will the national convener be allowed to return to her post to get on with her job of supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our society and leading a hearings system the backbone of which consists of volunteers, who are left worrying about the mess that the children’s minister has allowed to develop at Children’s Hearings Scotland?
Drew Smith should understand that neither I nor the children’s minister can comment on a live employment issue for which Children’s Hearings Scotland is responsible. That is a fundamental element of what we can and cannot do in a parliamentary system.
To be helpful to the member, I will try to provide a bit more detail. There are 10 projects within the overall delivery programme and nine of them are on track. The tenth project relates to the establishment of the area support teams, which must be agreed by local authorities and does indeed, in some aspects, require the national convener of Children’s Hearings Scotland to be in post.
As I stressed to the member, I cannot discuss the suspension of the national convener because it is a live employment issue that lies within the province of Children’s Hearings Scotland. The Scottish Government has seconded a senior official to work with Children’s Hearings Scotland, but there are certain functions that, by statute, must be performed by the national convener, hence the reassurance that I tried to give the member, in my first answer, that we will listen to the people on the ground. I further reassure him that the children’s minister will keep the chamber fully informed of the progress to delivery of the reforms.
Given the excellence of the participation in the children’s hearings system over the years, all members will be pleased to know that the last recruitment campaign for children’s panel members, in January and February, yielded the highest-ever number of responses. There were more than 10,000 applicants, which represents a 30 per cent increase on previous campaigns. All of us in the chamber should welcome that as a signal of the enthusiasm that exists for the children’s hearings system.
Lockerbie Bombing (Inquiry)
To ask the First Minister whether, in light of comments in the recently published biography of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Scottish Government considers that an inquiry into all aspects of the Lockerbie bombing is now urgent. (S4F-00502)
The only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt and innocence is the criminal court. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice made clear yesterday, an appeal route remains open although, of course, the matter cannot be determined by the cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary also explained the position regarding an inquiry staged by this Parliament.
Can the First Minister clarify who might have a locus to pursue any posthumous appeal on behalf of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi?
The primary locus would be thought to lie with the relatives of Mr al-Megrahi. However, as the cabinet secretary maintained yesterday, it is a matter for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
On the important issue of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the publication of the commission’s report, one of my greatest frustrations was to hear Mr Ashton claim that the Scottish Government is somehow trying to delay or prevent the full publication of the statement of reasons to the court. Nothing could be further from the truth. For the past three years, we have enthusiastically pursued a way to get the full report into the public domain. Given that, as the cabinet secretary said yesterday, we have now had television documentaries and a book that seem to be based, in part, on a partial explanation of what is in the full statement of reasons, my own view is that the case for full publication is irresistible. The full contents of the SCCRC report should now be made available to the public, hence the cabinet secretary’s renewed attempt with Kenneth Clarke to provide the protection from data protection provisions that would make that possible. I make one last observation. If the Parliament controlled its own data protection, we could do that very quickly indeed.
Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill have told us often, since the event, that the release of Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was not dependent on the withdrawal of his appeal. Can the First Minister tell us today whether they ever made that clear to Mr al-Megrahi and, if so, when?
Lewis Macdonald totally failed to land a blow on the cabinet secretary yesterday, so I do not think that he is entitled to a rematch today. Kenny MacAskill made the position absolutely clear yesterday. If the member had thought up better questions yesterday, perhaps he would not be so frustrated today.
12:34 Meeting suspended.