Plenary, 02 Feb 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, February 2, 2006

Official Report 688KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2085)

I look forward to seeing the Prime Minister soon, and we will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

I take the opportunity to congratulate members who were involved in last night's danceathon to raise money for Malawi. I understand that they raised about £1,300, all of which will be donated straight to projects in Malawi. They are to be congratulated and I hope that there will be further events in the future.

Last night's effort was absolutely tremendous and I am sure that it is great news for the Malawi fund.

I am sure that, like all of us, the First Minister was absolutely horrified at the news earlier this week of the 11-year-old girl in Glasgow who collapsed after using heroin. Does he agree that, after parents and families, schools and teachers are often the first line of defence in the war against child drug abuse? If so, can he explain why national funding for drugs education and teacher training has been withdrawn?

First, I presume that all of us, from all parties, feel shock at the incident that was reported last weekend. In such circumstances, it is always difficult to talk about the individuals involved, but it is clear that the incident raises issues for us. I hope that we will be able to respond to those issues at the same time as we give support to the school and people affected by the incident.

One of the achievements of recent years has been to ensure that drugs education is available in every school in Scotland. That co-ordinated programme of drugs education has run alongside interventions with young people in the community, the work of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency—with the choices for life programme for primary 7 children—and the other efforts that are under way to educate young people and others that heroin in whatever form it is taken is addictive. All those aspects, which all involve additional resource, have been important over the years. In my view, a comprehensive approach to the problem is essential.

The First Minister will be aware that since 1999 there have been no fewer than four reports—the most recent of which is from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education—calling for better training of teachers in schools so that they can better provide drugs education.

I draw to the First Minister's attention a parliamentary answer given by the Minister for Education and Young People only last week. Is the First Minister aware that, according to that information, all dedicated Government funding for drugs education and awareness in schools and for drugs education training for teachers was withdrawn completely in March 2004? Given recent research showing that 13 per cent of 13-year-olds and 35 per cent of 15-year-olds in Scotland claim to have used drugs, does not that lack of financial commitment to drugs education represent a fundamental flaw in the Executive's drugs policy?

It was appropriate to have a specific funding allocation when comprehensive drugs education was not available in every school and comprehensive continuing professional development was not available for every teacher—not just in teacher training but throughout their working life—as it is now as a result of the agreement that we reached with teachers' unions and teachers themselves in 2001.

Since then, we have mainstreamed not only continuous training for teachers but the funding. We have ensured that, throughout Scotland, there is available not just an incidental amount of funding for drugs education and an incidental amount of training for teachers to become better drugs educators; we have ensured that councils and schools are able to mainstream the funding and the training to ensure that drugs education is available in every school.

That is important, but it is also important that we review the situation. Ms Sturgeon might be interested to know that this month we are due to receive the report that we commissioned last year on drugs education in schools—now that the programme is several years on—to ensure that we can learn further lessons and that the programme can be expanded and improved in years to come.

That will be the sixth report in six years and, right now, there is still no dedicated funding for drugs education. The First Minister talks about comprehensive education, but I suggest to him that he has no idea what is going on in schools in relation to drugs education. How can he possibly know when the Executive's annual survey that was set up to monitor drugs education in schools has not been carried out since 2003, before the funding was withdrawn? How can he know when, last week, in answer to the question, "How many teachers have been trained in drug awareness and prevention?" the Minister for Education and Young People said that he did not know because the Executive does not collect that information?

Is it not time for the First Minister to admit that not nearly enough is being done to educate kids about the dangers of drugs? Is it not time for him to get his finger out and do a bit more about it?

I had many differences with Michael Forsyth when he was my local MP in Stirling and when he was the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, one of the things that he achieved in his time as Secretary of State for Scotland was to depoliticise the drugs issue and to ensure that parties and party leaders came together and rose above party-political debate to ensure that concrete action happened in Scotland. That has been the case until today, and I am disappointed that Ms Sturgeon has chosen seriously to misrepresent the situation.

Over the years, the nationalists and many others have consistently called for us to hypothecate less of the local authority budget for education and other matters to give local authorities more choice over how they spend their money in schools and elsewhere. We refuse to do that until we are certain that services are being delivered. Only when we were certain that drug education was available in every school and that teachers were being properly trained before they became teachers and throughout their working lives did we move away from a hypothecated budget and start to mainstream the budget to ensure that local authorities could make decisions at a local level. Our objective was to create an improved service that was better funded. We achieved that and it is wrong to misrepresent the situation.

Ms Sturgeon misrepresents another aspect. What happens in schools is an issue, but so is what happens in the home, and there is an issue of parental responsibility. In the case that has been mentioned, there is also a responsibility among the neighbours of the dealer who was selling heroin to someone of the age of 11. Either they did not spot it or, if they knew about it, they did not report it. There is a responsibility on the parents of the 11-year-old girl and there is a responsibility on us to ensure that we take more prompt action for youngsters who are living with drug-addicted parents and put the interests of the children first, locally and nationally. That is something that we intend to review.

I accept that the solution to drug abuse is complex and I agree with the First Minister's latter comments. However, surely there can be no doubt that education is a vital part of the solution. It is not politicising an issue—in this week of all weeks—to say that we should be doing more to educate our children about the dangers of drugs. It beggars belief that, when faced with the increasing use of drugs by children, the Executive's response has been to stop the monitoring of drugs education in schools and funding for it. Does the First Minister agree that it is time for us all to do more to prevent more young children from falling victim to drugs?

I am sorry, but it is politicising the issue to completely misrepresent and distort the position. Not only is there now training for teachers in advance of their becoming teachers and throughout their working lives and improved funding for education as a whole and for drugs education in particular through schools and other agencies, including the police service and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which runs the choices for life programme, but we have ensured that drugs education is available in every school in Scotland. We are reviewing that not to have another report, as Ms Sturgeon complains, but to ensure that we improve the situation. I hope that, when we receive the recommendations, we can work on an all-party basis to take them forward.

Education is important in tackling drug abuse, but what happens in the home and in the community is at least equally as important. There is a serious issue in relation to youngsters in homes in which the family is involved in drug abuse and drug addiction. The hopes, opportunities and futures of those youngsters must come first. That is why, while we continue to improve drug education in schools, we will examine seriously what happens in the home and what our social services are doing about it.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2086)

The Cabinet will discuss a wide range of issues, including regeneration and, I suspect, the on-going work on criminal justice, which is a subject that comes up regularly in discussions with Miss Goldie at question time.

If an 11-year-old girl asked the First Minister about taking heroin, would he give her information that was designed to help her to know the score so that she could decide for herself or would he tell her how dangerous drug abuse is and say that under no circumstances should she experiment with heroin?

The two things are the same. That is precisely why we are running a national advertising campaign not just on our television screens—I am sure that people will have seen the campaign regularly in the evenings in January—but in our schools and elsewhere. Appropriately, given what happened last weekend, the particular message for the early part of 2006 has been that smoking heroin is just as addictive as injecting heroin. We were aware that that message was not getting through, particularly to younger people. That is why we supported, with considerable resource, a national advertising campaign to ensure that young people not only know the impact of drugs but are dissuaded from drug abuse by the force of that information.

This appalling case highlights two simple points: the need for a clear message on drug abuse and the need for that message to be presented effectively. We have neither. Is it not time to ditch the discredited know the score campaign, which is a mocking echo of confusion and failure, and adopt a commonsense message that is designed to prevent our young people from even contemplating taking drugs? Does the First Minister accept that a straightforward, sensible message must be presented in an innovative fashion, not by people such as me and the First Minister but by former addicts and others with first-hand experience of the problem?

That is precisely the change that we have made, and are making, to the drugs information campaign. The simple message of the past—the just say no approach—is not enough on its own. If we tell youngsters to say no without explaining why, without explaining the range of dangers that exist and without supporting those youngsters in the community by giving them the confidence to say no to their peers or to older people who might try to deal in drugs with them, the message will fail.

Getting youngsters to say no is, of course, the primary objective of our drugs campaign, but at the same time we are ensuring that they have the information to make the right choices and the confidence to say no in a range of different situations and to say to other young people, "Did you know about this? Can you make that choice too?" That is our job and we do it in innovative ways in our schools, through our police forces, through communities, through other young people and through the role models that young people have. I agree that the message should come not from politicians but from people to whom young people will listen. That is why we will continue the effort, step up the campaign and ensure that young people get the message clearly and make the choice to stay away from drugs.

The trouble is that young people are not saying no. The number of under-15s who have been treated for drug abuse has more than doubled since the introduction of the know the score campaign, so the recent case is not an isolated incident. We need a strong anti-drugs message now. It must be straightforward, unequivocal, clear and commonsense. If the First Minister will not listen to me, will he listen to his Labour colleague on Glasgow City Council, Gaille McCann, who believes that this desperate incident should

"act as a wake-up call to us all, particularly the policymakers in their ivory towers"?

I think that that is true and I will return to that point, but it is also important to note that, when there is an increase in the number of people who are getting treatment, it is sometimes because they are coming forward and being identified. The treatment services are available because of the additional investment that we are putting into them. I understand that, currently, 418 young people under 16 are entering treatment. That is good because, otherwise, those 418 youngsters would be out on the street taking drugs and, perhaps, encouraging others to do the same. We need to have a comprehensive approach.

I agree with the point about looking at the policies and the way in which we respond. We know that youngsters who are in the homes of drug-addicted parents are more likely to get involved in drugs. That has become a fundamental issue for us. How do social services and other services respond to such situations? The needs of the children must come first and be considered when they are at a very young age. There should be a review of how our social services and others respond to ensure that youngsters have the best possible chance in life.

There are two constituency questions.

I welcome the First Minister's comments, particularly about the role of social services. The case that has been mentioned has shocked the east end of Glasgow as much as it has shocked the rest of Scotland.

My concern is to ensure that we support schools. I ask the First Minister to demonstrate that we give that support through the allocation of resources for drugs education to ensure that communities are not as badly affected as they have been by this case. Therefore, will the First Minister indicate what resources are presently available and what procedures are in place to ensure that we support children and give cities such as Glasgow enough resources to tackle the problem of drug misuse?

Mr McAveety will be aware that the Minister for Education and Young People recently announced increased resources for the city of Glasgow and other areas with particular problems. I hope that that will be supported throughout the chamber as we tackle these difficult issues.

From my earlier exchange with Ms Sturgeon, Mr McAveety will also be aware not only that there are increased resources for schools, but that there is drugs education in every school and that we have the required back-up and support for that from the community. I understand that, in Glasgow alone, 10 specific projects on alcohol and drug abuse are funded by our changing children's services fund, working in the areas of the city that most require such assistance. Ultimately, the state and schools can do so much, but families, neighbours, friends and others in the community also have a role to play.

If there is going to be a truly national effort, we need to ensure that our policies are appropriate and effective and intervene at the right time. We must also ensure that people identify the problems for us by being active in the community and reporting incidents. That is why we have used the money that we have taken from drug dealers, following their court case, to run local campaigns and to get local people to identify dealers so that we can convict more of them and stop this abuse happening in communities across Scotland.

Is the First Minister aware of the widely rumoured £3.5 million deficit in the books of the Western Isles NHS Board, which comes on top of the shock news earlier this week that a senior clinician with 24 years service in the islands has been sacked for whistle-blowing over allegations of bullying made by senior staff against the board chairman and chief executive? Will the First Minister insist that his Minister for Health and Community Care, Andy Kerr, takes heed of widespread local opinion, including that of Western Isles Council, and uses powers of intervention under the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2004 to restore quickly to the outer isles a health service that is based on trust and harmony and that can spend its scarce funds on patient services rather than protracted staff grievance procedures?

It would be totally inappropriate for a Government minister to intervene in an individual employment case in relation to which proceedings have not yet been completed. In such situations, whether in the health service or anywhere else, it is right and proper that individuals who have been the subject of disciplinary action by their employer should be able to follow the correct procedures, go through the appeals and thereby have their case heard.

I recall that, fairly recently, there were calls for ministers to intervene in an individual disciplinary case following an incident at either Inverness College or the university of the Highlands and Islands. However, the case was resolved by going through the proper procedures, which was the right way for that to go. I do not think that it would be right for ministers to intervene in this case.

---

Retirement Age (Public Sector Workers)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will safeguard the right of Scotland's public sector workers to retire at 60 under the rule of 85 regarding age and years of service. (S2F-2102)

Any member of the local government pension scheme has the right to retire at 60 if they choose, and there are no plans to change that. However, the rule of 85 allows only those members who qualify to do so with an unreduced pension.

That answer completely contradicts the answer that the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform gave to an earlier question. Hundreds of thousands of public sector workers in Scotland are furious at the Scottish Executive's attempts to withdraw their pension rights. Is it not the case that the legal advice that the Executive quoted was completely contradicted by the advice of both the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Unison, as well as by the advice of the European Commission spokesperson on employment, Katharina von Schnurbein, who ruled that

"The directive has no influence on pension value or pension age. It is completely up to the member state. If they think it is reasonable for people to retire at 60, under EU law that is perfectly legal"?

Will the First Minister assure us that he intends to protect the right of Scotland's council workers to retire at 60?

As I said, any member of the local government pension scheme has the right to retire at 60 if they choose to do so, and there are no plans to change that. There are plans to change the rule of 85, but negotiations about how that will impact on individual members of staff who currently work for local authorities in Scotland are still continuing. It is right that those discussions continue. I make it clear that any attempt by Colin Fox or others to distort the picture should not be believed.

I ask the First Minister, therefore, to allay the fears of more than 200,000 local government workers, including carers and teacher assistants, who fear that the Scottish Executive is simply playing its part in sending a signal as part of a wider attack on pensions that will see employees across the country asked to pay in more, work longer and receive far smaller pensions when they retire. Will he assure us that that is not part of the plan that he has announced?

It is important to remember two things. First, we have a duty to obey the law. Although we may from time to time receive calls from at least three of the Opposition parties to disobey the law, we are not prepared to do that—on fishing, on some of the issues that the nationalists raise or on the issues in respect of which Colin Fox and others regularly call on us to disobey the law. We should not disobey the law. We should implement the law under our duty as Government ministers and as a Parliament, and we intend to do so.

Secondly, we intend to look after the public purse, and we need to ensure that, while obeying the law, we have a mind to the cost of the local authority pension scheme. We are ensuring that that happens, and there will be proper negotiations with those responsible on the impact of the change on individual members of staff.

---

Sectarianism

To ask the First Minister how its "Action Plan on Tackling Sectarianism in Scotland" will involve all sections of the community in the drive against sectarianism. (S2F-2090)

Community-led action will have an increasing impact in stamping out bigoted attitudes, and I am proud of the way in which Scots have risen to the challenge of defeating sectarianism. The 18-point action plan that I announced on Monday represents a national effort to work with schools, universities and colleges, football clubs, churches, marching organisations, the police and many other stakeholders to achieve that goal.

Is the First Minister aware of the good work that is currently being done in Glasgow by Glasgow City Council, by the sense over sectarianism campaign and by schools such as St Mirin's Primary School and Croftfoot Primary School in my constituency?

The sense over sectarianism campaign and a number of other organisations working in that area have done a tremendous job in recent years, not only to raise the issue in the community and to ensure that schools and other organisations receive support but to put pressure on politicians to respond, as I believe we have now done. The work that is going on in Glasgow schools, particularly in the schools where I met pupils on Monday, at St Mirin's and Croftfoot, is outstanding. The youngsters whom I met on Monday were inspiring. I believe that the coming together of those youngsters for a variety of different activities, including reading, visits to other centres, drama and other activities, will have a lasting impression on them for the rest of their lives. I congratulate the teachers involved and I certainly encourage the youngsters to keep up the new friendships that they have made and to ensure that they continue to educate the adults in their lives, as some of them are clearly doing, into their secondary school years and beyond.

Will the First Minister ensure that all the organisations that are keen to combat sectarianism feel genuinely involved in the action plan and that it is not perceived as some Government thing that they have to trail along with? In particular, will he ensure that contact is made with the great majority of decent people in many organisations who will help to combat the small minority of extreme fanatics who cause much of the trouble?

I agree with Donald Gorrie on both his points. There have, indeed, been discussions with a wide variety of organisations over the past year, since the summit that was held last February. I was disappointed to hear the comments last weekend of some people who felt that they had not been informed or involved enough. There certainly has been involvement, but I am delighted to know that people want more involvement and more information. We will certainly ensure that we step up our efforts in that regard over the weeks and months ahead.

I certainly welcome the proposal in the action plan on the twinning of schools to encourage shared activities and to help to overcome the barriers that exist between communities. Such things are happening in some areas already. However, surely it would be better not to put up those barriers in the first place. Is it not time for the First Minister to clear the path towards full integration in our education system? If he is not able to take that position at this time, will he at least agree that the creation of new religious dividing lines in our school system would be a step in the wrong direction?

I do not agree with the abolition of Roman Catholic schools in Scotland. We need only look across the border to England to see a wide variety of schools of different faiths. The youngsters who attend those schools do not hate other religions.

Sectarianism in Scotland does not come from the schools; it comes from history, tradition, families and sometimes the communities in which youngsters grow up. Our job here is to ensure that, through the school system, youngsters are brought together whatever school they attend; that, through the force of the law, we tackle those who abuse others in the community as a result of a religious divide; that we manage and make decisions on marches and parades more effectively and with more determination to stamp out violence and abuse in the years to come; and that we work closely with all our religious leaders—including the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, who I see is with us today, and others who have supported these efforts—to bring together people of different faiths, so that they understand each other more, tolerate each other's views more and, at the end of the day, create a far more happy and inclusive Scotland.

---

Drug Use (Children)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive has undertaken in response to the findings published in 2003 by Professor McKeganey, which examined the extent of drug use and exposure in 10 to 12-year-olds. (S2F-2103)

I have every sympathy with Stewart Stevenson. He has a record of raising these issues and today he has had to follow on from earlier questions. I acknowledge the particular problem in his constituency and his interest in the issues. I hope that we can continue to work together on them.

As I said earlier, we are taking action on a number of fronts. We are ensuring that drugs education is available in all schools; that there is a national public information campaign; that there is early intervention and diversionary programmes for youngsters and families; and that there is improved treatment for those with acute problems.

I take the opportunity of saying that the First Minister will have a faithful friend for any sensible initiatives to which we can all sign up. However, the signs are not encouraging. I have been asking questions for around three months about what we know of these issues. The First Minister will know that Professor McKeganey's report was commissioned not in Scotland but by the Home Office—it was not a Scottish report.

In written answers on 3 November and 18 November, I was told that we do not know the size of the drugs trade and that we do not work with the Home Office. We do not have a report such as the one produced annually in London that gives information on the size of the drugs trade south of the border, on how many people are using different drugs, and on what the impact of those drugs is. Is it not time that we had quality research into factual ways of determining policy in Scotland—research that is at least as good as what is available south of the border?

It is vital that our approach covers all the different areas in which we must have an impact through policy, funding and the other decisions that we make. We do that not by reference to the Home Office but by reference to what is happening here in Scotland.

If Mr Stevenson indeed watches the matter carefully, he will see that in certain areas the Home Office and the United Kingdom Government are learning from what is happening in Scotland. That is good, and such an approach helps us because drug dealers do not exist in either Scotland or England but move across the border.

Aside from Professor McKeganey's report, the report entitled "Hidden Harm: Responding to the needs of children of problem drug users", on which an action plan will be published this spring, was also produced in 2003. We know from that report, and from the widespread consultations that are important if we want to bring together everyone who works in the drugs field, that we need to improve drugs education in every school in Scotland and that not only the police but—critically—our Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency must take certain educational and enforcement measures. Indeed, the Parliament will debate this afternoon the creation of an agency with wider powers, among other issues. Furthermore, we need to ensure that the money that we retrieve from dealers through convictions is reinvested in the community to tackle any damage that has been caused.

Evidence has shown that those actions must be taken, and the changes and adaptations in policy, the new laws that have been created and the new funding that has been allocated in recent years have all been based on that reality. We will continue to do those things and more.

---

National Health Service (Health Checks)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will consider introducing regular NHS health checks. (S2F-2093)

We are committed to a national health service that responds to people's health needs throughout their lives and, indeed, have already adopted a strategy of targeted health checks for those who are most at risk from disease.

If the Executive is considering the introduction of NHS health checks, why was the annual health check for the over-75s, which was introduced by the Tories, dropped in the new general practitioner contract?

I was going to be kind to Mary Scanlon, because I think her interest in the matter is genuine, but I cannot resist reminding her of what happened to the change that the Tories made. The GP contract was amended in 1990 by the then minister with responsibility for health, Mr Michael Forsyth, to include a health check for patients who had not been seen by a GP for three years. However, the introduction of the measure was such a shambles and the programme was so badly organised, implemented and monitored that the Conservative Government dropped it in 1993.

Our current commitment to health checks is very important. In Scotland, we will quite rightly begin by targeting checks at those who need them most. Indeed, that is the rationale behind not only the health checks but the prevention 2010 programme that the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform announced in response to the report by Professor David Kerr—the other Kerr—in the autumn. That preventive approach will not only ensure that our health service is more effective but save lives.

That concludes questions to the First Minister.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—