Plenary, 01 Oct 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, October 1, 2009

Official Report 672KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

Due to the suspension of standing orders that was agreed yesterday, question 1 to the Deputy First Minister will be asked by Johann Lamont.

Like Nicola Sturgeon, I am deputising in sad circumstances: the funeral of Bill Speirs, a giant of the Labour and trade union movement who was taken from us all too soon, is taking place today. Working people in this country and throughout the rest of the world have cause to be grateful to a man whose life's work was to fight for the rights of working people, the vulnerable and the exploited. He will be sadly missed.

To ask the Deputy First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1930)

I associate the Government with Johann Lamont's remarks about Bill Speirs. Like Iain Gray, the First Minister is at Mr Speirs's funeral. I know that our thoughts will be with Mr Speirs's family and friends today.

Later this afternoon I will hold a briefing on the latest information on the H1N1 influenza virus.

It has taken two years for the Scottish National Party Government to produce a school building programme. Some pupils, parents and teachers have, at last, been told that they will get the facilities that they need and deserve. Will the Deputy First Minister tell the chamber when the first of those schools will open and how many children will move into new classrooms in those schools before the next election?

I am happy to tell Johann Lamont that the £1.25 billion school building programme that Fiona Hyslop announced this week is in addition to the £2 billion of investment that this Government has committed to the school estate. Since we took office, 150 schools projects have been completed. The number will reach 250 by the end of our term in office. We are now building schools at a faster rate than happened under the previous Administration.

Johann Lamont's question is a rather desperate attempt to deflect attention from the previous Administration's woeful record on school building. [Interruption.] Labour members might want to listen to this. When Labour left office, 260,000 children were being taught in schools that were in a poor or bad condition. This Government has already lifted 100,000 of those children out of those conditions. That is a record of which we are very proud. [Applause.]

Order.

I am sure that that sounded good when the minister read it in her ministerial briefing, but let us return to the real world. In its own press release, the Government admits that the schools will not be built before 2013—indeed, there are only 14 schools on the SNP list. In fact, it boasts that it will build just 55 schools by 2018. In addition, the schools that the Government is starting with are not the worst schools. Right now, 150,000 pupils are sitting in schools that the Government has categorised as falling apart. Will the Deputy First Minister tell the chamber when the SNP will get round to rebuilding those schools?

I am not really sure what bit of this Johann Lamont has difficulty understanding. What I said in my first answer sounded good not only to me and my colleagues on these benches but to the 100,000 children and their parents. This Government has lifted those children out of the poor schools that Labour had left them in. The programme that Fiona Hyslop announced earlier this week is a programme for 55 new schools, with 14 secondary schools in the first phase. I repeat that the investment is in addition to the £2 billion investment that the Government has committed to the school estate.

I have one final comment on the dreadful legacy of the former Labour/Liberal Democrat Administration. When Audit Scotland looked at Labour's school building strategy, it said that the Executive had not even

"set out what … needs to be done or how it will be achieved".

This Government has put in place such a strategy and the investment to back up the strategy. Right across Scotland, children and their parents will benefit from that.

I am not sure what world the minister is in, but it is not the real world—the world in which my children go to school. In the real world, real people understand that real children are being harmed by SNP inaction. The inordinate delay has come about because the SNP promised to ditch the public-private partnership model and build schools under the Scottish Futures Trust. Will the Deputy First Minister tell us how much money the Scottish Futures Trust is generating for the school building programme?

Johann Lamont and I represent the same city. The biggest threat to the future of schools for children in Glasgow right now is Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council's school closure programme.

No matter how often Johann Lamont trots out the tired lines that Iain Gray uses every week, it will not make them true. A hundred and fifty schools projects have been completed since the Government took office and 250 will be completed by the end of our term in office. On average, every year, the Government is spending more on school investment than the previous Government did. That is our record and I am proud of it.

Apart from Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council, the biggest threat to investment in schools in Scotland is the cuts from the Westminster Government of £500 million. If Johann Lamont cares about capital investment she will direct her remarks to her colleagues in London.

The question was about the Scottish Futures Trust.

I am privileged to represent Glasgow and I am disappointed that Nicola Sturgeon is joining her colleagues in attacking Glasgow rather than standing up for the city.

The Scottish Futures Trust is a quango that costs a staggering £23 million. We learned today that it has spent £120,000 on consultants in four months, yet it has not generated a single coin for Scotland's schools. What a triumph. It takes a special kind of genius to come up with an education policy that will have built no schools by the next election, that leaves 150,000 children in dilapidated classrooms, that costs at least 8,500 construction worker jobs and that produces 1,000 fewer teachers. It takes a special kind of genius indeed to claim that that record is a rip-roaring success.

When she was an Opposition spokesperson, Nicola Sturgeon said:

"we would expect to be judged by actions not soundbites."

By that measure, how many marks out of 10 would Nicola Sturgeon give Fiona Hyslop?

I leave it to Wendy Alexander to give herself marks out of 10. I am proud of this Government's record on school investment.

Everything that Johann Lamont has just said about the Scottish Futures Trust is completely untrue—that is unsurprising from a Labour member. As we speak, the Scottish Futures Trust is working on projects at schools and on community projects under the hub initiative, right round the country. The Scottish Futures Trust will have a central role in managing the new school building programme that was announced earlier this week. Among other things, it will ensure that in that programme we get much better value for money than we got under the private finance initiative schools projects of which Labour was so fond and which were such a bad deal for the taxpayer.

I will defend the Government's record on schools every day of the week, because the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning is delivering and the Government is delivering, and that is exactly what we will continue to do.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

I associate Conservative members with Johann Lamont's comments about the late Bill Speirs.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1919)

The First Minister has no plans to meet the Secretary of State in the near future.

The health of our children is hugely important. The Scottish National Party manifesto promised that every pupil would get

"2 hours of quality PE each week"

and would have

"free … access to council swimming pools."

The manifesto also promised that the SNP would establish

"an innovative sport volunteer programme"

and that there would be more

"centres of sporting excellence".

By my calculation, none of those promises has been kept. Why not? Will they ever be kept? If so, when?

That is simply not true; progress on all those areas has been made throughout Scotland.

Annabel Goldie raised a serious point about the health of our children, on which I hope we can find consensus in the Parliament. Like other members, she will be aware that the statistics in the Scottish health survey, which was published this week, show that we are making positive progress on increasing levels of physical activity and, encouragingly, that the rate of increase in obesity among children is slowing.

Nevertheless, there is a considerable amount still to be done. Therefore, I hope that Annabel Goldie will welcome and support the investment of more than £50 million that we are making over the three years of the comprehensive spending review period to improve diet and physical activity for children. I also hope that she will welcome the real progress that the Government is making through the curriculum for excellence towards ensuring that children get the access to physical education in our schools that, sadly, they did not get under the previous Administration.

The face in the seat may have changed but the message has not. That answer to my question has the hollow ring of more broken election promises from the SNP. We cannot play politics with our children's future. The class size pledge is in tatters, discipline is not being dealt with and now the SNP is reneging on our children's health and wellbeing. I ask the Deputy First Minister—again—when will every pupil get two hours of quality PE every week; when will every pupil have free access to council swimming pools; when will there be an army of sports volunteers; when will there be more centres of sporting excellence? Will those promises, like the class size pledge, be delivered only to our great, great, great grandchildren in 90 years' time?

As Annabel Goldie knows—or should know; I assume that she researched her question before asking it—by June this year, every local authority had committed to the delivery of the curriculum for excellence and, as part of that, to making progress on providing at least two hours of physical education to every child every week. That is the kind of progress that people want to see and the kind of progress that was lacking under the previous Administration. [Interruption.]

Order.

Annabel Goldie asked about class sizes. It is interesting that the Labour Party was too scared to go on to that topic again this week. Labour members know that class sizes in Scotland are at a record low. They know that the number of primary 1 to 3 pupils in classes of fewer than 18 is increasing and is at a record high. [Interruption.]

Order, please.

Across that range of policy areas, the Government is making progress. Perhaps the question that Annabel Goldie should ask is which of those so-called priorities for the Tories would be put under threat by the desperation on the Tory benches north and south of the border to make cuts in public services.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I associate the Liberal Democrats with the tributes that have been made today to the life of Bill Speirs.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1920)

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

The tragic deaths of three people on a level rail crossing at Halkirk in Caithness are regrettably not unique. Where fatal accidents happen on Scotland's roads, action is rightly taken. At Sumburgh airport, barriers were installed on the road across the runway after motorists had problems seeing warning lights similar to those on rail crossings but, thankfully, before an accident. How, therefore, can it be acceptable for the rail industry to say that installing barriers would cost too much? How many fatal accidents or injuries do there need to be before action is taken? Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, if barriers can be installed at airports for exactly the same reason, there can be no justification for not acting to stop deaths and injury at rail crossings?

I put on record my condolences and those of the Scottish Government to the families of those who tragically lost their lives earlier this week in that appalling accident.

Tavish Scott is right to raise such an important issue and I have a great deal of sympathy for the points that he made. As he knows, investigations into the cause of the accident continue and it would be wrong for me to speculate at this stage on what caused it. The rail accident investigation branch has taken charge of the investigation following the handover of the fatal accident site from the Northern Constabulary. The investigation will involve independent testing of the level crossing safety equipment. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has already had a preliminary briefing from Network Rail on Tuesday's accident but he will be briefed further following the outcome of the investigation.

It is important to stress that our rail network is among the safest in the world, but I understand the concerns that have been expressed, particularly about the lack of barriers at some level crossings. That is why the transport minister will explore with Network Rail whether it can and should make further improvements at crossings where there have been such serious accidents.

Jamie Stone, who represents the constituency, has been at a meeting in Caithness today and has been making that argument. Is it not time to cut through the morass of rail bureaucracy, which gets in the way? Network Rail has risk assessors; the local highway authority has responsibilities; and so do Transport Scotland, the rail regulator, the railway inspectorate, the Health and Safety Executive, the police and even the Scottish Law Commission. Will the Deputy First Minister accept that, if she asks the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to pull together all those organisations to order action and to request the money to do it, she will have support from across the Parliament, and certainly from the Liberal Democrats?

I am more than happy to respond positively to that suggestion. I say this not as an attempt to pass the issue to anybody else, but railway safety has not been devolved to the Scottish ministers; the issue remains reserved to Westminster. Tavish Scott's point about the plethora of organisations involved is well made. I have no doubt that the transport minister would be more than happy to discuss with him, with Jamie Stone and with other interested parties how the issues could be taken forward. I am sure that there is nobody in the chamber who does not want to ensure that we do everything possible to minimise the chances of such an appalling accident happening again.

---

Alcohol Misuse

To ask the First Minister what evidence there is to support the Scottish Government's plans to tackle alcohol misuse. (S3F-1922)

On Monday, we published the results of independent research carried out by the University of Sheffield on the potential effects of minimum pricing for alcohol and a ban on irresponsible off-sales promotions. The results show that a 40p per unit minimum price and a ban on irresponsible promotions would be expected, over a 10-year period, to reduce alcohol-related deaths by 19 per cent, to reduce alcohol-related illnesses by 8 per cent, to reduce hospital admissions by nearly 10 per cent, to reduce crime by more than 3,000 offences per year and to provide a financial saving from harm reduction of £950 million over 10 years.

Of course, no single action will bring about the change that is required to rebalance our relationship with alcohol. Working with others from across the chamber, the Government is determined to produce a package of measures that can make a big difference to this massive public health challenge.

The Sheffield study, which demonstrates the economic, health and social benefits of introducing minimum pricing, follows on from a gathering body of international evidence that supports such a policy, given the gains that could be derived from it.

I am sure that the Deputy First Minister agrees that although minimum pricing can play an important role in addressing Scotland's unhealthy relationship with alcohol, it is essential that we take every opportunity to inform individuals of the direct health risks that come from consuming too much alcohol and that, as overconsumption of alcohol is one of the main lifestyle risks in relation to breast cancer, the launch of breast cancer awareness month today provides an ideal opportunity to get that message across.

Michael Matheson is absolutely correct, and I am sure that there will be much agreement throughout the chamber with what he has just said. There is still a lack of awareness of the full health risks that are associated with alcohol misuse. In the case of breast cancer, more than one in 10 deaths among women in Scotland are estimated to be attributable to alcohol.

The Government is working hard with partners and other parties to highlight the health risks that are associated with alcohol and to encourage people to reflect more carefully on their alcohol consumption. We have rolled out an ambitious programme to help support people whose drinking might be putting them at risk and to persuade them to cut down.

Over time, the wider package of measures that I have already mentioned, which I believe should include action on pricing, will help us to turn the tide on the problem and to rebalance our relationship with alcohol.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that any new measures to tackle alcohol misuse must be supported through better enforcement of current law, particularly a higher success rate in prosecuting cases of underage drinking—including the prosecution of those who are responsible for selling alcohol to children?

Yes, I strongly agree with that. I believe that the package of measures in the Government's alcohol framework, which we intend to legislate on later this year, will go a great distance towards helping to tackle problems with alcohol. However, I agree strongly that we should not introduce new legislation without enforcing strongly the legislation that is already in place. In the past couple of days, I have discussed that with Cathy Jamieson, who is Labour's health spokesperson. On behalf of the Government, I can say that we are committed to working with other parties in the Parliament to look at ways in which we can ensure that existing legislation works as well as possible and that new legislation will tackle the problem effectively.

Can the Deputy First Minister tell me why the study used rather old figures, from 2003, rather than the 2008 figures that are now available? Will she comment on the fact that the study estimates that a minimum price of 40p per unit of alcohol will result in an increase of £90 million per annum to private retailers and a drop of £4 million a year to public revenues? Can she tell me why that is a good thing?

A good thing about the research that was published the other day is that it demonstrates that a policy of minimum pricing, on its own or in combination with a ban on irresponsible promotions, would cut consumption of alcohol. The key objective is to reduce the consumption of alcohol. The benefits that are laid out in the University of Sheffield study are that, by reducing consumption, the policy could cut the number of alcohol-related deaths, illnesses and incidents of crime. I appreciate and concede that we have still to win the argument on minimum pricing among sections of the Parliament, but I encourage all members to read the study. It lays bare the great benefits that could result if the Parliament is prepared—as it was on the ban on smoking in public places—to be bold and to lead from the front by taking action that is about improving the long-term health of our country.

The Deputy First Minister will no doubt agree that there are individuals who are problem drinkers and that there are drinks that can be identified as problematical. Does she agree that a more targeted approach might be to work with the Westminster Government to look at ways in which excise duty can be used to target problematical drinks, to make them less accessible to the more vulnerable sections of our society who abuse them?

Bill Aitken and I might have a slight disagreement, in that he thinks that alcohol misuse is only a marginal problem whereas I think it is a wider problem that affects more people in the population. Notwithstanding that disagreement, I think that he has a point about the need to ensure that, as well as cutting consumption across the population, we target the problem of hazardous drinkers.

I am happy to co-operate with anybody who will co-operate with us in tackling the problem. We are currently trying to persuade the Westminster Government to take action on the advertising of alcohol. So far, the Westminster Government has not proved too willing to do that, but we will continue to seek to persuade it.

I recommend that Bill Aitken read the University of Sheffield study, if he has not already done so. It suggests that minimum pricing and a ban on irresponsible promotions be a targeted policy. For example, the cost impact will be felt by those who drink hazardous levels rather than by moderate, responsible drinkers. I submit that that is exactly the type of policy that we should look to implement.

---

School Building Programme<br />(Scottish Futures Trust)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Futures Trust will provide the funding for any of the 14 secondary schools that were announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in the news release on Monday. (S3F-1928)

The new £1.25 billion school building programme that we announced, with £800 million of Scottish Government funding, will deliver 55 new schools the length and breadth of Scotland. On Monday, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning announced the first 14 of those schools. As I have already said today, that is in addition to the £2 billion of investment that the Government has already committed.

The Scottish Futures Trust will have a central role in managing the new school building programme, working alongside local authorities. It will deliver better and more efficient ways of managing and procuring the new programme to achieve better value for money than was achieved under previous schools building programmes, including the private finance initiative.

As 23 per cent of schools are in poor or bad condition, 8,500 construction workers have lost their jobs and construction costs are decreasing by 6 per cent, does the Deputy First Minister agree that it is time to dump the discredited Scottish Futures Trust and open up capital investment to other funding models that will provide jobs for construction workers and schools that are fit for the 21st century?

I think that it is right for the Government to try to get as much value for money as we can out of the £3.25 billion that we are investing in education. If Labour had worried a bit more about value for money when it was in office, perhaps we would not have the PFI payments that we have to bear today.

I find it surprising that any Labour member has the brass neck to raise the issue of substandard school buildings when the Labour Administration left a legacy of more than a quarter of a million Scottish children in substandard schools. This Government's investment is already lifting children out of those substandard schools, and we will continue to do that. I would have thought that Labour would welcome that.

---

Home Insulation Scheme

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government is content with the rate of progress on the home insulation scheme. (S3F-1925)

Yes, we are. The home insulation scheme is on track for local marketing to begin later this month. The member will also be pleased to know that the scheme will offer help to up to 100,000—rather than, as previously envisaged, 90,000—households.

Homes in 10 council areas across Scotland, including the Orkney Islands, have been successful in their bids for the schemes to make their homes more energy efficient. The package of insulation measures on offer could reduce annual household fuel bills by an average of £70 each, as well as significantly reducing emissions as part of our world-leading climate change measures.

The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee has recommended that the Government use

"the forthcoming budget … to consider substantially increasing resources for an area-based, targeted energy efficiency/conservation programme designed to tackle fuel poverty and reduce energy demand."

That is seen as key to delivering Scotland's energy future.

Does the Deputy First Minister share that view? Does she share the concern that one third of the £15 million that was allocated to the current home insulation scheme appears to have gone on administration? Does she regret that of the £15 million of match funding for the scheme that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth promised in February, to date only around £0.75 million has been forthcoming? Instead of simply repeating assurances that the Government is doing all that it needs to do, will she agree with the unanimous view of the cross-party Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee that it is simply not enough?

As Liam McArthur knows, the draft Scottish budget for 2010-11 provides for £15 million-worth of a home insulation scheme that will help up to 100,000 houses. As the draft budget goes through the parliamentary process, it is open to any member of the Parliament to lodge amendments to increase spending on that or any other part of the Scottish Government's budget—but any member who did so would have a responsibility to say from what part of the budget they would take that money.

I wonder how Liam McArthur's call for yet more money to be spent on yet another part of the Scottish Government's budget fits with Nick Clegg's recent call for savage cuts in public expenditure. Perhaps Liam McArthur would care to square that circle.

Can the Deputy First Minister say, when the contract for the home insulation scheme was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union, why its value was put at only £7.8 million? Exactly how much is being spent on administration?

I am sure that I can provide Mary Mulligan with the precise details of when the contract was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union and the precise figure for administration, but I hope that she will welcome the fact that the procurement process has almost finished and that, as a result, local marketing will begin this month. Visits to homes will take place from November and installations will start from December. That is good progress and good news, which all members should welcome.

We are happy to work with the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and other interested members to find out what else we can do to improve home insulation and contribute to our climate change targets. I hope that the positive progress that has already been made is welcomed.

I, too, commend the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for its recommendation, but I do not want to spend the next few months just having a go at the Government for what it is not doing. Does the Government acknowledge that there is overwhelming consensus among members of every political party and umpteen non-political organisations that we must go much further much faster than the existing schemes? Will it convene a cross-party meeting to turn the consensus on principle into consensus on practical measures for funding the work in good time?

I acknowledge the points that Patrick Harvie makes and his contribution to ensuring the progress that we have seen so far. I accept that many people think we should go further; I am sure that he concedes that the Government works within a fixed budget and that we have to say where money will come from. I would be more than happy to ask the responsible minister, Alex Neil, to meet him and any other member who is interested in the matter to find out whether we can build even further on the cross-party consensus that already exists.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—