First Minister's Question Time
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-623)
Since we are being so convivial this afternoon, I welcome the First Minister to First Minister's question time. [Applause.]
I last met the Prime Minister on 23 October. I have no immediate plans to meet him again.
I suspect that that may be the biggest revelation of the afternoon. [Laughter.]
The First Minister assured Parliament when he was appointed last week that he would not let us down, but yesterday the young people of Scotland were let down by the Executive—not once, but twice.
Pupils who were let down during the summer over the Scottish Qualifications Authority fiasco continued to be let down yesterday. Those same young people are likely to be entrants to higher and further education next autumn. They have been let down because the Government has now put a question mark over its ability to deliver grants for students because the bill to provide for those grants has had to be withdrawn. One could call those young people the class of 2000. Why has team McLeish let down the class of 2000?
There is a simple and obvious response to the points made by John Swinney: the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Bill has not been withdrawn.
In a few weeks' time, we will provide a revised bill, which will contain some changes to the drafting to strengthen particular areas. For example, students who do not successfully complete their degree will not pay. Next week, we will announce formally the detailed arrangements for the bursaries that we are introducing for higher education students next year.
The leader of the SNP is early in his career, but he seems to want to build political mountains out of technical molehills—unlike his distinguished colleague, Alex Neil, who now convenes the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and who is taking a mature approach to student funding. I hope that John Swinney will reassure the chamber that he will not meddle or seek to sabotage the bill, which is an important element of the student funding package.
Those issues have a second connection as, until last Thursday, the governance of the SQA and the management of the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Bill were the ministerial responsibility of Mr McLeish.
On the day Mr McLeish promised the Parliament he would not let us down, was he aware that his department might have to let down Scotland's students by withdrawing that bill? Did he know—yes or no?
The only people who are letting Scotland down sit on the benches of the so-called party of Scotland. [Members: "Answer the question."] Remember the scene last week—[Interruption.] I will deal with the Conservatives later.
Does the chamber not remember the soulless, surly, sullen faces of SNP members last week when we announced the contracts for Govan? Next week, the coalition will announce that 30 per cent of Scottish students will in fact receive a new bursary; we will announce that 30 per cent of students will be able to apply for a mature student bursary. We should not forget that this coalition abolished tuition fees. Furthermore, 45 per cent of students will benefit financially from our measures and not one student will be worse off. I commend that package not only to the SNP but to the people of Scotland who want to take these issues seriously, not throw them around like a political football as the SNP does.
I noticed that, in among the clichés, the words yes and no did not appear in the answer to my question. In his six days in office, Mr McLeish has already let down Parliament by inferring the politicisation of the civil service and the parliamentary committees; he has let down our school pupils by continuing the SQA saga with no decisive action; and he has continued to let down our students with problems over the student finance bill.
The First Minister has let down, let down, let down the pupils and Parliament of Scotland. Next week, he will continue to let down our pensioners unless he adopts another SNP policy and agrees to pay for the personal care of our pensioner community, as the Sutherland report called for. After his performance in his six days in office, does he agree that, in the words of the song, "Things can only get better"?
I always think that the mark of a talented politician is to stick with one issue and keep going. Today, we have had student fees, the SQA, pensioners and freedom of information. I suspect that that will characterise John Swinney's reputation. I want to quote him from an interesting little newspaper interview. He said:
"If you were to say to a member of the public what does the SNP stand for I'm pretty sure that they would say the party stands for independence, but I don't think they'd be able to say much more beyond that."
The NP in SNP still stands for no policies.
I want to end on an optimistic note for Scotland. Not only can I record the fact that we will introduce new bursaries next week and a revamped endowment bill, I can announce to Parliament that the number of Scottish students accepted to UK institutions has increased by 7.2 per cent this year. I can also reveal that the number of Scottish students accepted to Scottish institutions is up by 7.8 per cent. We have record figures and a record package of measures; the only people in the country who do not like that sit on the SNP benches with the same sullen faces.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I add my welcome to Mr McLeish on his senior debut as First Minister. I will now ask him a familiar question.
To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-618)
I speak regularly to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the telephone and I plan to meet him tomorrow.
I am delighted to hear that. I am sure that the First Minister is looking forward to meeting Mr Reid, if only as a welcome break from his many discussions with Mr Canavan.
One of the continuing problems that the First Minister might wish to discuss with Mr Reid is the crisis at the SQA. Will the First Minister confirm reports that his new Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, Mr Jack McConnell, is set to axe the board of the SQA and has called on all the current members to resign? If that is true, does he agree that Mr McConnell has acted with remarkable speed, in sharp contrast to the dithering of his predecessor and the First Minister himself when he was Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning?
I do not think that this is how a First Minister should be treated. Last night, in the Edinburgh Evening News, I read the following:
"Scottish Tory leader David McLetchie said today that he would be asking First Minister Henry McLeish why the plan was not pursued."
I am surprised that he is not asking about that. Tomorrow, Jack McConnell will tell us a great deal about what he intends to do with the SQA. Jack will take some tough action, and I do not intend to give members even a glimpse of what is happening.
Leaving aside the cauld kail that David McLetchie throws around in this place, we should all be united on one thing: that this fiasco should never happen again. Pupils in Scotland sitting exams should never be faced with that prospect, and parents, who are concerned about and proud of their children, should never be put in this position again.
I am pleased that Jack McConnell will move on the issue tomorrow, when the report will be published—as we promised. There will be a full discussion about that in the country. We will also honour our commitment to the two committees involved. When the dust settles, we must be absolutely clear that we have one purpose: to move on from this situation. Jack McConnell will talk about that tomorrow.
We can take that as a yes to my question. I would be delighted to ask the First Minister why the cost of the Scottish Parliament building has gone up from £40 million to £210 million. In the time available to him, perhaps he can tell us why that is the case.
Of course, the First Minister has many other problems to deal with. According to newspaper reports at the weekend, the First Minister would like to scrap the plan to introduce workplace parking charges and to adopt the main recommendation of the Sutherland commission in relation to personal care. That is all supposed to be part of
"a change of emphasis and direction".
Can the First Minister clarify his position on the situation that he has inherited? Has he inherited a legacy to be cherished, or is it a liability to be ditched, as his new spin-doctor was telling the Sunday newspapers?
The policies that we inherited, particularly on social justice, have been responded to amply by the fact that we now have a Cabinet minister whose sole responsibility is to ensure that that legacy is fulfilled. It would be helpful if in this chamber David McLetchie would start to talk up some Tory policies. For 18 years the Tories ravaged Scotland, but from David McLetchie we get only a ragbag of issues that are thought up on the back of an envelope before he walks into the chamber.
We have a rich legacy, but it is absolutely right that the new Administration should review its policies and their development. That is why I have asked Cabinet members to report by a week on Friday. Once the review is complete, we can take matters forward. When we speak in this chamber, we speak for the people of Scotland. We should never forget the fact that we need to build trust and a link with them. After we have examined our policies, I would welcome the opportunity for them to be debated as widely as possible. The SNP and the Tories have no policies; only the coalition has policies to take Scotland forward.
Will the First Minister discuss with the Secretary of State for Scotland tomorrow ministerial responsibility for the Scottish Qualifications Authority? Is the report in today's Daily Record that Mr McConnell will take over ministerial responsibility for the SQA correct, or will that responsibility continue to be shared by two ministers? Would it not have been better to await the outcome of the inquiry by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee into the governance of the SQA before making that announcement? Should not that announcement be made to Parliament instead of in the Daily Record?
No announcement has been made in the Daily Record; indeed, no announcement has been made at all. Members should keep calm and keep their anticipation intact. Opposition members are getting very excited, but it will soon be Friday. In the absence of anything positive to say, excitement can fill them up. Tomorrow, Jack McConnell will make a statement on this issue. That statement will reflect what needs to be done, and I have every confidence that it will be the best way forward.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Members have often brought before you concerns about announcements being made outwith this chamber. On this occasion not only is an announcement about to be made outwith the chamber, but the First Minister is advertising it in advance. Do you have any comment to make on such advertisements?
I think that a public announcement is different from private announcements to newspapers.
Railways
From the Labour back benches, I welcome and congratulate the First Minister.
To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with Great North Eastern Railways regarding the restoration of the east coast main line north of Edinburgh. (S1F-617)
The Scottish Executive has been in daily contact with GNER about services in Scotland affected by the diversion at Hatfield and the current temporary speed restrictions across the GB network.
In pursuing those discussions, will ministers remind GNER that its east coast main line franchise commits it to direct rail links not only from Edinburgh to London, but from Aberdeen to London? Will ministers press it to fulfil that commitment and make it clear that its continued failure to do so will jeopardise whatever credibility it still has in seeking a renewal of its franchise on the east coast main line?
I am pleased to align myself with the comments and concerns of the local member, Lewis Macdonald. This has not been a good two weeks for the railways of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] This is astonishing behaviour from the SNP lot. This is a serious issue about railways. The SNP does not take much seriously these days.
Sarah Boyack has been in close touch with the rail authorities. We are keen to make progress on the matter that Lewis Macdonald has raised. We have also had problems at Polmont, problems with the west coast main line and problems with sleepers that are not running. That is not the way to run a modern railway. If we are going to enter the 21st century we must step up our discussions with the rail authorities. We will work with local members to ensure that that happens.
I repeat my point about Railtrack and the operating companies: in the public interest, they will have to raise their game, because the service that we are getting—not only in Scotland, but in other parts of the United Kingdom—leaves a lot to be desired.
Given the comments that the First Minister has just made, his comments on radio about Railtrack being a farce and the overwhelming mood of the people of Scotland, will he announce today that he supports the call for the renationalisation of the public rail network?
I realised that I would face many challenges and questions, but I did not think that I would get that one from Tommy Sheridan. I will not join him on that commitment.
Suffice it to say that the Conservatives botched up Railtrack. Even Railtrack has now accepted that. Our key concern is that we want to be at the heart of the UK and Europe. That means that we must have effective rail links from the south right up to the north of Scotland.
This is about investment and a concern for the passenger, which has not been evident over the past few days. I stick with the comments that I made about Railtrack earlier in the week; we want to see improvements.
Sutherland Report
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will now implement the key recommendations of the Sutherland report, including the funding of personal care on the basis of assessed need. (S1F-619)
Susan Deacon outlined the Executive's response to the report of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly on 5 October.
I am disappointed that the First Minister's answer does not appear to live up to his briefings to the Sunday newspapers. The First Minister has made much in the past few days of wanting to get rid of unpopular Labour policies. Does he agree that now would be a good time to instruct the Minister for Health and Community Care to scrap her opposition to a policy that has such widespread support in Scotland? Is it not time that Labour agreed to implement the central recommendation of the Sutherland commission and say to the 30,000 older people in Scotland who currently pay for basic help with washing, dressing and toilet needs that that support will now be received free of charge? That would remove once and for all the threat, which those people face, of having to sell their own homes or to dip into their life savings to pay for such support. Would that not be a good start—
Order. We cannot have mini-speeches in support of questions.
Hear, hear.
They say a change is as good as a holiday, but in Nicola Sturgeon's case it has not helped a great deal.
There is no monopoly of concern among the Opposition parties. That has been exemplified in recent weeks and months by Susan Deacon's substantial announcement in response not only to Sutherland, but to the wider needs of our older community, ranging from central heating to free travel to the vast improvements that will be made next year in relation to care. [Interruption.] I hope that SNP members will have the manners to listen.
I said with sincerity on the weekend radio and television that I am concerned about what is happening. If we listen in any way, we will hear that there is concern in the country. Susan Deacon has gone a substantial way forward—and in many areas further—on what we are doing. All I can say at this stage is that the ministers will be reviewing.
When Susan Deacon made her statement—[Interruption.] If the SNP mob would listen, they would learn something. In her statement, Susan Deacon said:
"We agree with the principle of equity that underpins the recommendation"
of the Sutherland commission, but it may be difficult
"to make that change at this time"—[Official Report, 5 October 2000; Vol 8, c 1022.]
We will consider that. The point is that we are always looking, and if we are doing that Susan Deacon will be reviewing that policy. We will have a further look at that and we will take it from there.
Will the First Minister ensure that the redefining of personal nursing care that is being undertaken by the chief nursing officer, which was announced by the Minister for Health and Community Care, will ensure that full and appropriate care will be provided free of charge to those who are suffering from dementia, mental illness and learning disability?
Richard Simpson's question is important and what it calls for is crucial to any way forward. The Minister for Health and Community Care is nodding her head, acknowledging the points that have been made. I take it that those matters will be considered.
We have in Scotland 950,000 women over the age of 60 and men over the age of 65. We owe it to them to do the best we can. We have moved substantially on that agenda. If we are being progressive, we will always look at how much further we can go. That is an important catch line for this Parliament and Executive.
That concludes question time.