First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2514)
Later today, the leader of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and I will visit the Pennywell and Muirhouse areas of Edinburgh, where I will announce joint Scottish Government and local authority funding of £120 million towards the building of 1,000 new affordable homes across Scotland. That will support about 1,200 housing sector jobs and 700 more in related trades. We are working in a partnership with local government to provide a new generation of council housing. I am delighted to announce the plans for 1,000 new homes across Scotland.
Presiding Officer, for two parliamentary years now, I have asked questions of the First Minister every Thursday. He never answers any of them. Perhaps he will answer Kelly McGee, whose brother Paul was murdered on 25 October 2009. He was stabbed outside the family’s home when he went to help someone else. Kelly’s question is this: when more people are killed by the use of a sharp instrument than are shot, why is a minimum sentence in place for gun carriers but not for knife carriers?
I know that Iain Gray will acknowledge that every person in the chamber has enormous respect for those who have been victims of crime and for the families of victims of crime of whatever kind. Nobody would demean their campaigning efforts. Indeed, we support them. I know that Iain Gray, in fairness, will want to acknowledge that knife crime is down 11 per cent since this Government took office. I believe that that is because police numbers are up by more than 1,000, and therefore detection rates, the use of stop and search and the ability of our police to protect our communities are much greater than they would otherwise have been.
On the difference between knives and guns, one argument that is deployed—I think that a fair amount of reason is attached to it—is that it is difficult in most cases to see what purpose a gun would be put to. With knives, of course, there are many occupational and perfectly innocent reasons why they are in our community.
I hope that Iain Gray will acknowledge in fairness that the Labour Party spent 13 years in office at Westminster and 10 years in the Scotland Office and devolved Government in Scotland, yet at no stage in that entire time did it propose the measures that it supported with the Tories yesterday. That contradiction is one of the major questions that people have about the sincerity of the Labour approach to the issue in Scotland.
I have to tell the First Minister that the families of the victims of knife crime who were here yesterday did not feel respected by all members of the Parliament. In particular, the family of Kelly McGee, whose brother was an Iraq war veteran, felt absolutely disrespected by the contribution that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice made.
I accept that, when in power, we did not introduce minimum sentencing for carrying a knife. We did double the maximum sentence. We acknowledge now, as I have done before, that we did not do enough. Yesterday, when Kelly, John Muir and the other families of knife victims asked me what I would do for them, I promised them that I would not give up and that mandatory minimum knife sentences would be in Labour’s manifesto next year. I promised them that I would bring that policy back to the chamber and that we would try again to do the right thing by them. What new action to tackle knife crime will the First Minister have in his manifesto next year?
Whatever Iain Gray says and however he wants to misinterpret and misquote people, the fact is that every single member of this Parliament respects the victims of crime and their families.
The way in which Iain Gray put the second part of his question indicates that those who regard the contrast between Labour’s track record in office and the arguments that it puts now as a fairly blatant attempt to politicise a serious issue have more than a little justice behind their comments.
In terms of what is done, Iain Gray must realise that, in the current economic environment, additionality in public spending will not be possible for many years to come. Given that this morning’s Daily Record says—presumably with figures supplied by the Labour Party—that 7,000 people will not be imprisoned as a result of yesterday’s votes, and if we assume that six months’ imprisonment costs the public purse £20,000, the policies that he put forward yesterday would have cost £140 million a year. I point out to Iain Gray that £140 million a year is the cost of 3,000 police officers. This Government believes that the additional police who are on the streets of Scotland are protecting our communities. That is why crime is at a 30-year low. That is why detection rates are at a high. That is why public confidence in the police is at an all-time high. That is why knife crime is falling. That is why general crime is falling. If the Labour Party came into office and spent money that involved cutting back on police numbers instead of expanding them, it would be doing a huge disservice to Scotland and all its people.
Well we are going to need extra police on our streets, because the First Minister is going to release 7,000 criminals on to those streets. Those 7,000 criminals currently go to jail. If his purpose in ending three-month sentences was to save money, that should have been said yesterday, but that was not the reason that was given.
Look, we should not be surprised that the Government ends this year by releasing 7,000 criminals from our jails. It started this year by releasing the Lockerbie bomber from jail. In between, the First Minister was found out providing testimony for a drug dealer. His deputy was caught trying to keep a serial fraudster out of jail. Why is it that Alex Salmond is always to be found on the side of the criminals and never on the side of the victims?
Yesterday’s debate indicated that the new coalition Government south of the border has realised the futility of short-term sentences in tackling crime. It should be remembered, as was mentioned in yesterday’s debate, that south of the border among the foremost advocates of the policies that are being pursued by a majority of MSPs north of the border is Cherie Booth, who has some substantial experience in these matters. It should also be remembered that the commission that brought forward the consultation and the arguments that were pursued in the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill yesterday was headed by Henry McLeish, who is a former Labour First Minister of Scotland.
When we take into account the arguments from an evidence-based approach and the fact that crime in Scotland is falling as a result of the additional police that this Administration, with the support of a majority in this Parliament, has placed on our streets, and when we recall that the Labour Party proposed no additional police at the previous Scottish election, we see that those achievements of the justice system in Scotland stand in comparison to the lack of ambition of the Labour Party at that election. Also, when we consider that the policies that Labour put forward yesterday would have imposed totally unsustainable costs without any evidence whatever that they would have any effect on crime, and when we see the number of voices raised in support, across the parties, for the policies that are now being pursued, I think that Iain Gray is very foolish indeed to attempt to politicise the issue of criminal justice. On that basis, he will go down to a resounding defeat in the election campaign.
Let us look at what is happening in Scotland; let us look at the achievements. What does Alex Salmond’s year add up to? We have seen not just fewer knife criminals going to jail but fewer teachers in our schools and fewer nurses to follow; not one school built, not one hospital completed and the Glasgow airport rail link cancelled; and more jobs lost than anywhere else in Britain, unemployment higher than the rest of the country and economic growth trailing the rest of the country.
Alex Salmond talks about this chamber. What about his alcohol policy? Rejected in this chamber. His climate change targets? Thrown out of this chamber. The First Minister is too scared even to bring his referendum bill to the chamber. Has he got anything planned for his final parliamentary year, or will it be a waste of time as well?
I will attempt to answer some of the points in that diverse question, which was delivered using the scatter-gun approach so favoured by Iain Gray. As he is probably well aware, 260 new schools have been built under this Administration—[Interruption.]
Order.
I know that Iain Gray will want to acknowledge the 1,000 new council houses that this Administration is announcing today, to add to the thousands that have already been announced, in contrast to the six council houses that were built by the previous Administration, all of which were in Shetland—a tribute to the influence and power of Tavish Scott in that Administration.
As it turns out, despite being a minority Administration and having to appeal for support across the chamber on various votes—appealing for and getting support from the Liberal party on free education and getting support from the Conservative party on putting extra police on our streets; we have had less success in getting any support whatsoever from the Labour Party—the SNP Administration has now met 77 of our 94 election manifesto pledges. That is rather better than the record of Iain Gray’s majority Government when he was last in government in this Parliament, which The Sunday Times reported met only half of its pledges.
Just so that Iain Gray remembers, let us have a look at a few of the highlights. The council tax—
No, I must ask you to be brief, First Minister. [Interruption.] We are running out of time.
Just a couple more. We have delivered funding for a thousand police officers and abolished Labour’s back-door tuition fees.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2515)
I hope to meet the Prime Minister this month.
The collapse of The Gathering 2009 Ltd left more than 100 small businesses out of pocket to the tune of more than £300,000. In anger and despair, a number of those small businesses have written to the First Minister, and this quotation is typical of the response that he has given:
“I was and remain delighted that the indications are that Homecoming Scotland 2009 has been a resounding success.”
That must have cheered the small businesses up no end. What a patronising insult to them.
The collapsed company, overseen by two Scottish Government quangos and a Scottish National Party council administration, reported cash-flow problems two months before the Scottish Government granted its secret loan. Let me ask the First Minister these questions: what financial checks were made, what personal guarantees were sought from the directors and what attempt, if any, was made to have ticket moneys held by the third party assigned to the Scottish Government?
I must say that if Annabel Goldie is so concerned about the issue, perhaps she should have been in the chamber for Michael Russell’s statement on it. [Interruption.] Annabel Goldie can correct me if she wishes, but I certainly did not see her in the chamber yesterday.
I will point out to Annabel Goldie a number of the pertinent facts. It is not a trite reply to point out the success of homecoming as a series of events—there were more than 200 national events last year. It provided an enormous boost to Scottish tourism in a difficult period during the recession, and it is one of the reasons why the numbers of visitors from overseas and, indeed, from elsewhere in the United Kingdom were up last year. I know that Murdo Fraser is one of the keenest advocates of repeating the homecoming experience in 2014.
As Michael Russell said in his statement yesterday, the loan was provided to The Gathering 2009 company to address the specific cash-flow issue, because a huge amount of money—this was checked, and it certainly was correct—was tied up in the WorldPay system that the company could not access. As the Auditor General for Scotland made clear in his report, it was “not unreasonable” for the Scottish Government to take the action that it did, because if we had not taken it, it is likely that the gathering would not have gone ahead. If it had not gone ahead, £10 million would have been lost to the Scottish economy and it is estimated that more than 200 jobs would not have been sustained. For all those reasons, I hope that Annabel Goldie, without the benefit of hindsight but looking at the decisions that Michael Russell, the Government and I had to make, will accept, as the Auditor General said, that that was not an unreasonable thing to do.
Well, the First Minister may retreat into rhetoric and bombast, but let me get back to reality. Let me quote from a letter written by Jamie Landale, the then managing director of Wild Thyme, a small Perthshire catering company that was left high and dry. He said:
“I concede that in the business world, deals go wrong and agreements fail, but what angers me here is the eagerness by which a multitude of senior figures have been very happy to take the glory, talk up its success and then fail the very people who made it successful in the first place.”
That is the reality. That catering company provided canapés and a cocktail party for VIPs and the First Minister. While he enjoyed himself nearly a year ago, that company is still owed £11,000. Surely even the First Minister feels red faced with embarrassment.
That company and other small businesses have today issued a statement about the secret loan, which states:
“We are all of the view that we should have known about this loan and that would have given each of us the ability to make clear commercial decisions as to whether we should take part at all and if we did on what commercial terms.”
So what does the First Minister say to those small businesses today? How is he going to restore their confidence in the Scottish Government, because most of them would not touch it with a bargepole? Or is his final word, “So long and thanks for the canapés”?
Again, if Annabel Goldie had listened to Michael Russell’s statement yesterday, she would know that, when the troubles in the company were revealed after the event and it could not repay its public sector loan, the Scottish Government made extensive efforts to find a solution to help the private sector creditors. It was with regret that, after reaching an agreement, the City of Edinburgh Council was not able to fulfil its terms. [Interruption.]
Order.
Annabel Goldie should not underrate the work done by the Scottish Government in attempting to make the solution a reality.
On the Auditor General, Annabel Goldie should pay close attention. When the Auditor General makes statements, Annabel Goldie should at least acknowledge that somebody with independence of mind has looked at the issue. Michael Russell pointed out yesterday that the Auditor General reflected in evidence to the Public Audit Committee that if the gathering event had not gone ahead, none of the income would have come in and none of the payments would have been made to the many companies that were already contracted to the gathering.
However, the key quotation that people should bear in mind when attempting to judge the Government’s action retrospectively is the Auditor General’s comment that
“clearly time was not on anyone’s side by the summer of last year, because the event was committed to and was about to proceed. The Scottish Government—”
took—
“the not unreasonable view that in order to allow the event to proceed it should assist the short term cash-flow problems of the company that was delivering the event.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 23 June 2010; c 1820.]
If that is the opinion of the Auditor General after a full analysis, will Annabel Goldie not at least acknowledge that that should get some of the respect that she says should be acknowledged in terms of the overall issue that is before us?
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2516
I have no plans to do so in the near future.
Everyone now knows from the independent forecast how bad the public finances are. Even if the Scottish Government refuses to show any leadership on the issue, we all know that public money must be spent wisely. We have heard again today about a £180,000 loan for The Gathering 2009 without adequate checks.
Last month, I told Mr Salmond about the spending of £400,000 by Scottish Enterprise on novelty golf balls and corporate gifts, but he did not seem that bothered.
As nursing posts are being cut across Scotland’s health service, is it the best time for the Scottish Government to spend an extra £1.2 million on patient rights officers?
The expenditure in the national health service is deployed extremely effectively across Scotland. I am particularly impressed by the administration costs of the NHS in Scotland, which are much lower than they are elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
As Tavish Scott well knows, when it comes to efficiency of government, the Scottish Government has announced a reduction of a quarter in the number of quangos, a reduction of 50 per cent in marketing costs and a reduction of 5 per cent in administration costs.
I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge, because it is a fact, that two thirds of the cutbacks that are to be visited on the public sector across these islands for the next few years—indeed, for the foreseeable future—are the legacy of Labour’s hideous mismanagement of this nation’s finances. However, Tavish Scott must accept that the other third of those cutbacks are the design of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Administration.
When people contrast the arguments and attitudes of Tavish Scott’s party during the election campaign with the announcements in last week’s budget, they will realise that talking about public spending and public sector job losses will not be the strongest ground for the Liberal Democrats for the foreseeable future.
I am asking Mr Salmond about his budget and his spending right now.
As health boards are cutting the number of nurses across Scotland, the Government is to provide £1 million for patient rights officers for a bill with no rights. Is not the Government standing its health priorities on their head? When the number of medical staff is cut, patients will worry that they cannot see a doctor or a nurse, not about whether they can meet a Government bureaucrat.
Will the First Minister show some leadership today and put that £1 million into health for the treatment of patients?
I point out to Tavish Scott that the bill is to come before Parliament. As he should know, it is supported by patient groups across Scotland. If he intends to vote against it, he will have to explain to those people why they should not have rights. I think that most of us agree that, for patients and consumers in the NHS, the public interest and patient rights are an important part of the fabric of a modern health service.
If I remember correctly, before the election campaign, the Liberal Democrats said that there was a VAT bombshell, which they would resist. After the election campaign, their position has been to endorse and support that bombshell, which includes a bill of £26 million for the NHS in Scotland. If we compare the £26 million of the Liberal Democrats’ NHS bombshell with the cost of providing patient rights in Scotland, we find that Tavish Scott is on very poor ground indeed.
I am aware that time is passing, but I am not prepared to have other members’ questions talked out by the first three questions, so we may have to do a bit of overtime today. I will take a supplementary from Lewis Macdonald.
Is the First Minister aware that Aberdeen City Council is taking itself to court over a proposal to locate a homeless hostel in a sheltered housing complex and that this week it has served court papers on every objector to its proposal, including my constituents Master Evan Thomson, aged 11, and Miss Shana-Michelle Cunningham, aged 8? Will he pick up the phone and explain gently to the leader and deputy leader of Aberdeen City Council that they should not take children to court for standing up for their grandmothers? Will he urge them to drop the case now?
I am sure that the leader of Aberdeen City Council will be able to explain the position to the local member.
The only thing that I will say about Lewis Macdonald’s interventions in relation to Aberdeen—which, as a constituency member, he is perfectly entitled to make—is that I would have a bit more understanding of and strength of feeling towards his commitments if, even once in the aftermath of the Government’s action to save the Glencraft blind workshop, he had acknowledged that effort. He was extremely keen to talk about the issue beforehand but less keen to talk about it afterwards.
I will take a further supplementary from Frank McAveety.
As the First Minister is aware, one of Scotland’s foremost stonemasonry companies, Hunter & Clark, based in the east end of Glasgow for more than 100 years, has gone into administration with the loss of 168 jobs. More worryingly, 30 apprenticeships specialising in stonemasonry have also been lost. I know that the First Minister cares passionately about retaining the best of our country’s heritage, so will he indicate what actions the Government and its agencies can take to ensure that apprentices can be found places with other companies to conclude their apprenticeships? If, as I understand it from today’s debate, we are committed to homecoming 2014, does he agree with one commentator that if we do not act, we leave behind
“dedicated, high-quality specialists with a skill rarely seen today.”
I will certainly give particular consideration to the issue raised by the constituency member, and he will get a full reply from me. He will be aware of the modern apprenticeship programme and the support that Historic Scotland is giving to historic skills. As the member rightly says, those skills are very much part of our heritage. I shall detail that support for the constituency member, as well as considering in detail the issue that he raises on behalf of his constituents.
National Health Service (Front-line Services)
4. To ask the First Minister what discussions have taken place with the United Kingdom Government, under the auspices of the respect agenda, regarding protecting front-line NHS services. (S3F-2520
Discussions are taking place with the United Kingdom Government regarding the protection of front-line NHS services. However, this Government has made clear our commitment to passing on to the NHS in Scotland the consequentials from any increase in the health budget committed by the UK Government. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, it should be remembered that coalition plans to increase VAT to 20 per cent will place a burden of £26 million on the NHS in Scotland.
I reiterate the three commitments given by me and the Deputy First Minister: the quality of health care provided by NHS Scotland is a top priority of this Government; there will be no compulsory redundancies among NHS staff in Scotland; and NHS Scotland will have more staff at the end of this session of Parliament than at the beginning.
As the First Minister will be aware, divisions have already emerged in the Con-Dem coalition over its commitment to ring fence the NHS in England from Westminster cuts. I heard what the First Minister said about the consequentials. Notwithstanding the tough financial choices, whatever happens does he remain committed to high levels of patient care as being paramount in Scotland?
The three commitments that I listed stand: quality health care is a top priority for this Government; there shall be no compulsory redundancies in the national health service in Scotland; and, at the end of this session of Parliament, more staff will be working in the NHS than at the beginning of the session. The commitment to pass on the consequentials of any protection of the NHS is important and will be well received and well recognised by the vast majority of the Scottish people.
I am sure that, being a fair man, the First Minister will want to acknowledge the decision of the UK Government to scrap Labour’s jobs tax, thus saving the NHS in Scotland more than £50 million a year.
Yes. I acknowledged that at a previous First Minister’s question time. I am sure that, as part of the respect agenda, Murdo Fraser will acknowledge that I have always been even-handed in my criticisms of Westminster Governments—from whichever London-based party.
Referendum Bill
5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will abandon its plans for the introduction of a referendum bill. (S3F-2525)
No.
Why has it taken the First Minister so long to concede that independence is no longer the centre of gravity for Scotland’s future? If he had not ignored the majority of Scots, who consistently reject independence, we would not have wasted three years of precious parliamentary time. Does the First Minister think that Scots are fooled by the sidestep to fiscal responsibility—a different version of independence? Scots have noted that he said that the second aim of the SNP is to further the interests of Scotland.
Out of respect for Parliament, when will he give it the details of his plans? Does he not think that independence is now an irrelevance? It is time to move forward. He should abandon his plans. His deadline has already passed. When will he see sense?
Pauline McNeill should have listened to my short and succinct answer to her first question before reading out her second one. I believe that the centre of gravity in Scottish politics is moving towards independence and I am happy to repeat that position.
I do not agree with Pauline McNeill that fiscal responsibility and independence are one and the same thing. If that were the case, Campbell Christie, the former general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, would not currently be speaking up so strongly for fiscal responsibility. I do not think that, as yet, Campbell Christie is a convert to independence.
On the timetable for the bill coming before Parliament, for a number of reasons I am keen to shadow closely the commitment to hold a referendum in Wales in the spring of next year. As I understand it, that proposal has been put forward by the coalition Government in Wales and endorsed by the new coalition Government in London. I look forward enormously to hearing the Labour Party’s convoluted explanations for why it is prepared to give the people of Wales a say in their future while simultaneously denying that to the people of Scotland.
Is the First Minister aware that the Electoral Commission has made it known that there should be six months between any such referendum bill receiving royal assent and an actual referendum? Does he accept that, after three years of delay and a failure to bring such a bill to the Parliament, he has run out of time for a referendum to take place in the current session of Parliament?
No. Mike Rumbles should have listened to my last answer to Pauline McNeill. If the Liberal Democrats at Westminster were following that guidance from the Electoral Commission, they would not have put forward the proposal to hold a referendum in Wales in the spring. I have heard some extraordinary arguments from Mike Rumbles in my time, but if the Liberal Democrats are prepared to give the people of Wales the opportunity to choose their own future in the spring, does he want to deny the same privilege to the people of Scotland?
Education System (Achievement Gap)
6. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in light of remarks by Dirk Van Damme of the centre for educational research and innovation at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that Scotland’s education system is suffering from an achievement gap between rich and poor. (S3F-2517)
We strongly agree with many points in the 2007 OECD review, which identified the strengths of and challenges for the Scottish education system. As Elizabeth Smith is no doubt aware, Dirk Van Damme was a member of the review team that visited Scotland, whose report endorsed the curriculum for excellence as the vehicle for tackling those challenges, including the achievement gap to which she refers. As Ms Smith may also be aware, Mr Van Damme recently commented on the way in which Scottish schools are governed, saying that
“schools should get more management autonomy”.
We think that that is an interesting proposal, which is why we have given our support to the innovative plans for clusters of community-led schools in East Lothian.
I thank the First Minister for flagging up the fact that Mr Van Damme mentioned greater autonomy and diversity. Will the Scottish Government now support Conservative plans to introduce state-funded free schools, which would provide that autonomy and diversity?
No. Having examined a range of educational systems, Mr Russell, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, believes that the Finnish models have more to teach Scotland than the Swedish model to which Elizabeth Smith obliquely refers. That was a sensible judgment by Mr Russell, and that will be the policy that is pursued by the Administration as we introduce the new curriculum—no doubt, with the united support of the Parliament.
Mr Van Damme told his audience a fortnight ago that equity is not always served by equality. Does the First Minister agree that more needs to be done to support schools that serve communities where there are high levels of social disadvantage? What steps will he take to meet the needs of pupils in those schools?
As Mr McNulty will be aware, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has geared his moves towards lower class sizes in Scotland precisely to address that socioeconomic balance. Let us remember that Mr Van Damme based his remarks on Scottish education on an OECD report that was reviewing Labour’s term of office in education in Scotland. Page 15 of the executive summary states:
“Children from poorer communities and low socio-economic status homes are more likely than others to under-achieve”.
That is why it is correct and proper of the education secretary to devote so much attention to bringing about the first moves to lower class sizes in poorer areas. I hope that, when Des McNulty has the opportunity to consider that, he will ensure that Labour councils throughout Scotland follow the direction of travel that the education secretary has set.