Plenary, 04 Feb 2010

Meeting date: Thursday, February 4, 2010

Official Report 824KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2182)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Three weeks ago, the First Minister agreed with me that eradicating illiteracy should be a national priority in Scotland. He said that he would deliver it through his concordat with councils. Indeed, he said that his concordat would

"deliver all the other educational priorities and other vital priorities for this nation."—[Official Report, 14 January 2010; c 22774.]

Looking ahead to next week's debate on council budgets, does the First Minister stand by that promise?

The concordat is hugely valuable to the people of Scotland. It has been an innovation in the relationship between local and central Government in Scotland and is valued by local councils as much as it is by the Government.

I remind Iain Gray that, under the Labour-Liberal Executive, the percentage of funding to local authorities in Scotland was going down year by year. The last budget that it set had it at 33.39 per cent. Under John Swinney and the Scottish National Party, the percentage to local government has gone up year by year.

It is true—[Interruption.]

Order.

It is true: everyone knows that there is no such thing as a free lunch, especially when it comes to Alex Salmond. Priorities need resources. At the very moment that the First Minister was promising us that the concordat was the answer to Scotland's literacy problems, just up the road Edinburgh's SNP council was planning to cut 6.5 per cent from the budget that funds its literacy programmes on top of cuts of more than 30 per cent that it has already made to those programmes. In Holyrood, Alex Salmond supports literacy but, in Edinburgh, the SNP cuts it. Was the First Minister trying to get into the "Guinness Book of Records" for the fastest broken promise ever?

I think that Iain Gray said that it was true that the local government percentage of the budget in Scotland is going up year by year. I saw Andy Kerr shake his head and mumble something there, so let us just nail the issue. In the last year for which Labour set the budget, the share of funding going to local government was 33.39 per cent; it then rose to 33.63 per cent, then 33.99 per cent and then 34.09 per cent. Andy Kerr's theory—which nobody else believes, of course—is that there have been no cuts in the Scottish Government budget. That is what he told us yesterday. Therefore, by definition, if local government is increasing its share year by year, it must follow that there are no cuts in local government budgets. The reality is that the Scottish Government and every local council in Scotland are struggling with the £800 million of cuts set on us by the Labour Party.

I think that it was the First Minister who was struggling with that answer. He either does not know or does not care what is happening in communities around Scotland, but parents and pupils know. While he is playing "Celebrity Come Dine With Me", literacy programmes in Edinburgh are being cut, schools in South Ayrshire are being cut, education jobs in Renfrewshire are being cut and, throughout Scotland, 2,000 teachers and 1,000 classroom assistants have already gone. Surely protecting our schools is one of the

"vital priorities for this nation",—[Official Report, 14 January 2010; c 22774.]

so why is the First Minister failing so badly? [Interruption.]

Order. Before I call the First Minister, may I have a cessation of loud conversations between other front-bench members?

I am strongly tempted to talk about burgergate as Iain Gray has opened up the issue, but I will stick to local government funding and the fact that, year by year, the percentage of funding for local authorities in Scotland has increased. Yes, there is pressure on budgets throughout Scotland; it is caused by Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom Iain Gray used to advise.

A document from West Dunbartonshire Council has fallen into my hands. Perhaps it explains why the fall in teacher numbers is so concentrated among local authorities under the control of the Labour Party in Scotland. I have in my hands the budget proposals of the West Dunbartonshire Council Labour opposition. First, it does not like the idea of extra police. It seems that it does not like the idea—just as George Foulkes does not like it—because it might fulfil the SNP Government's target.

Answer the question.

Order. If the question includes local authority points in it, the First Minister is entitled to answer them.

I know that it must be upsetting to hear me read out Labour Party material from West Dunbartonshire Council, but I think that the Parliament deserves to know what the Labour Party there wants to do with the education budget. It wants to withdraw free school milk in primary schools from April 2010 because, it argues, the feedback from the parents shows that there is a lot of wastage. I remember what the Labour Party said about Margaret Thatcher when she was snatching the milk from children around the country. Those are the plans of the Labour Party in opposition. Thank goodness Labour is in government in so few local authorities across Scotland.

The First Minister will say anything, promise anything and blame anyone just to get through First Minister's questions, but he will do nothing to protect front-line services and nothing to protect our children's future. If it is all Westminster's fault and all the councils' fault and there is nothing that he can do, here is the question that Scotland's parents and pupils will be asking: what is the First Minister for?

I am for a lot more than dealing with Iain Gray every First Minister's question time, which is not the hardest task in the world.

Iain Gray says that we must not allocate any responsibility to Alistair Darling. I have here a Scottish Parliament information centre report, which shows absolutely that, next year, £837 million less will be spent than was planned to be spent. It also shows in table 2 the thing that Andy Kerr tries to deny in each and every budget debate: the first real-terms decline in Scottish public spending since the Tory party was in office. If that was the end of the Labour plans, it would be bad enough, but the red book at Westminster shows progressive, year-on-year declines in revenue and capital spending in Scotland. That is exactly why this nation needs control of its resources and the economic powers to give us a different future to what will be meted out by the Labour Party at Westminster.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2183)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The people of Scotland are getting a raw deal on out-of-hours medical care. Since the Labour Government at Westminster and the Lib-Lab coalition in Scotland introduced the new general practitioner contract in 2004, three telling facts have emerged: GP pay is up by 40 per cent; 95 per cent of GP practices opted out of out-of-hours care; and, meanwhile, out-of-hours ambulance call-outs have rocketed by 42 per cent. It is clear that the Scottish Ambulance Service, which is already under pressure, is filling the gap. Does the First Minister agree that the contract was mismanaged, has undermined patient confidence and could jeopardise patient care?

We did not initiate the change in GP contracts, as Annabel Goldie well knows. One of the best ways of testing the health service in Scotland and whether people are satisfied with the provision that they are getting is to look at the figures on public satisfaction. She will have noticed that public satisfaction with the Scottish health service has been rising and is the highest of anywhere in these islands. The people recognise the challenges in the health service, but they are extraordinarily grateful for the fantastic job that all people in the health service do for Scotland—and not just those in primary care.

I would not dissent from the overall perception that the First Minister has conveyed, but I am talking about a particular aspect of the health service, which I know concerns a great many people the length and breadth of Scotland. Everyone in Scotland should have reliable access to urgent and primary care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I accept that some general practices have extended their daytime hours, but that is not out-of-hours service, and we cannot rely on the Ambulance Service to plug the gap.

The GP contract is a United Kingdom contract, but the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have a formal role in the process. A Conservative Government at Westminster would renegotiate the contract. Does the First Minister support a renegotiation of the UK GP contract in order to get a better deal for patients in Scotland?

We are always looking for improvements and open to suggestions, but health boards in Scotland are required to ensure satisfactory out-of-hours cover for every citizen of Scotland.

When it was introduced, NHS 24 attracted a number of concerns and criticisms from across Scotland, but satisfaction rates for NHS 24 are rising substantially. When it came to responding to the threat of a major flu pandemic, NHS 24 was an extraordinarily valuable resource, which rose to the challenge.

Constructive suggestions will always be considered constructively by this Administration—as we have noted over the past few days. Annabel Goldie would not wish to give anything other than the impression that the health service in Scotland is rising to some considerable challenges, including budgetary challenges, and is overcoming them in a fashion that is held in great esteem by the Scottish people.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2184)

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

Until today, only trained firearms officers in Scotland have been routinely equipped with Taser stun guns. Now Scotland's biggest police force, Strathclyde Police, is proposing to issue them to every patrolling officer in Cambuslang and Rutherglen. What is the policy position of Scottish ministers?

I know that Tavish Scott did not mean to suggest that the officers taking part in the pilot studies will not be trained. The officers will have the same training as those who use Tasers at present. Rather than theorising on what could or could not happen, the whole purpose of pilot studies is to examine the evidence and see whether it is appropriate to use the measure as part of the proper defence mechanisms that the police have in order to maintain public order.

I know that Tavish Scott would not minimise the issue, but I point out to him that we are all concerned about the number of assaults on the police, and we all want the police to have the appropriate mechanisms with regard to what they may deploy to do their job properly. The whole Parliament will wish to maintain that position.

I certainly agree with that last point, but what involvement have the Scottish ministers had in the decisions of Strathclyde Police so far? Has the Government changed the policy position to allow Tasers to be issued to police officers who are not specialist firearms officers? Will the Parliament be able to consider whether a trial is even necessary before it is rubber-stamped by ministers? Will we get to see the evidence? Will Parliament have a say?

When Tasers were put on trial in England, they were used 600 times in the first year—34 children were zapped with 50,000V. It is a slippery slope towards every officer in Strathclyde carrying a Taser gun. What active steps are ministers taking to ensure that what starts in one part of one city does not grow to take in the whole of Strathclyde and then the whole of Scotland?

The Parliament can obviously decide as it wishes. Currently, it is an operational matter for the chief constable of Strathclyde.

Oh!

Yes, it is, I am afraid. I remember the same sort of rhetoric and concerns when Tasers were issued to firearms officers. The operation of them has proved to be highly satisfactory. I stress this again as, despite acknowledging my earlier point, Tavish Scott again seems to suggest that the officers who are being issued with Tasers in the pilot will not be trained. Let me repeat that they will have the same training as specialist firearms officers in the use of Tasers. It would be appropriate if we allowed the chief constable of Strathclyde Police to have his pilot studies and to analyse the results. Then we can come to an informed decision, as opposed to Tavish Scott's unwise speculation about what the results might be.

I will take a constituency question from Willie Coffey.

The First Minister no doubt shares my concern at the Rail Accident Investigation Branch's report into the rail crash last year in Stewarton, in my constituency. A catalogue of errors and missed opportunities over 20 years has put lives at risk. It was astonishing to learn that, although a maintenance train that went over the bridge three days before it collapsed detected clear signs of movement, nothing was done to address the corrosion of the girders in the bridge. Will the First Minister ask the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to take up the matter with Network Rail and the United Kingdom Government and to seek assurances that the recommendations in the report will be actioned as speedily as possible, in the interests of public safety?

I share Willie Coffey's concerns about the findings of the RAIB report into the causes of the derailment of a freight train at Stewarton. The Scottish Government considers safety to be paramount in the management of the Scottish railway network. Of course, responsibility for rail safety is retained at Westminster.

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change will write to the chairs of Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation to secure assurances that all lessons learned from the incident have been applied across Scotland.

I will take a further constituency question from Marlyn Glen.

To ask the First Minister, following the Minister for Public Health and Sport's comment on Tuesday on the extension of the remit of the C difficile public inquiry, when she said that it is for Lord MacLean to decide how he wishes to progress the inquiry, whether he will confirm that Lord MacLean can now investigate the causes of the deaths in the outbreak at Ninewells hospital in Dundee.

Lord MacLean made the inquiry's terms of reference clear at its first public session. The Deputy First Minister would not have appointed somebody of his distinction unless he had the proper discretion that is accorded to chairs of such inquiries. Lord MacLean spelled out clearly at the first evidence session how he intended to proceed—I think that that was satisfactorily received by the people who attended.

---

2012 Olympic Games

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government responds to reports that only 17 of 2,806 bids from Scottish-based firms for contracts relating to the 2012 Olympic games have been successful. (S3F-2185)

It is disappointing that Scottish companies appear to be missing out on the promise by the United Kingdom Government that the London 2012 games would spread benefits across the country. It is also clear that the Olympic Delivery Authority and the UK Government could do more to ensure that contracts are marketed fairly. We will continue to fight for Scottish companies to be given their fair share and we are working hard with our partners and through initiatives such as business club Scotland to ensure that that is the case.

Does the First Minister agree that the situation is a further demonstration that the supposed benefits for Scotland of the 2012 Olympics are somewhat ethereal? Will he outline what steps the Government will take to redress the imbalance, particularly with regard to contracts that will be awarded for events in which the Government will have a more direct role, such as the 2014 Commonwealth games?

I do not know whether the benefits are ethereal, but they are certainly no substantial enough. That is clear from the figures. It might be useful to share the figures with members, because we have figures for the number of registrations and the number of contracts awarded. This is not a particularly Scottish issue. In north-east England there were more than 2,000 registrations and only 12 contracts awarded; in Yorkshire there were almost 5,000 registrations and 20 contracts awarded; in Northern Ireland there were more than 1,000 registrations and one contract awarded; in Wales there were 2,200 registrations and two contracts awarded; and in Scotland there were 2,800 registrations and seven contracts awarded. In London there have been 29,000 registrations and a grand total of 236 contracts awarded.

There is the clearest imbalance across the country in companies' enthusiasm to register and compete and certainly in the contracts awarded. The member's concern is extremely legitimate, and everyone who cares about Scotland—I hope that that includes all members—will see that there is legitimate cause for concern. We should all try to put pressure on, to ensure that contracts are awarded fairly across the country as was promised, given that the whole country is paying for the Olympic games.

Will the First Minister echo Scottish Enterprise's call for more Scottish companies to register and complete their profiles for the bidding process so that they have a chance of getting some of the multimillion-pound contracts that are still available?

I pointed out that 2,806 Scottish companies have registered. That is a significant number of registrations but, unfortunately, only seven contracts have been won. I agree that the more companies that register, the better, but the figures tend to indicate that the key problem is not only the number of registrations—which, incidentally, is greater here than in many other parts of the country—but the number of contracts awarded, which seems to show the most incredible concentration on the south-east of England and London. I would have thought that everyone would not only support the registration of more companies but want the distribution of contracts awarded throughout the country to be fair.

I agree with the First Minister that it is disappointing that Scottish companies have won so few contracts. Perhaps he would care to advise members about the largest contract in many years in Scotland—the Southern general hospital contract—which the Scottish National Party Government let to an Australian company. The fair share was no share—one contract; none awarded. Based on the First Minister's previous answers, will he guarantee that a Scottish company will win the Forth crossing contract?

Contracts will be awarded within the rules allowed. [Laughter.]

Order.

Andy Kerr will find that the employment that is generated from the largest capital investment in the history of the national health service in Scotland will be extraordinarily greater than that from, for example, the much smaller but disgracefully inflated Hairmyres public-private finance initiative contract in East Kilbride, which I remind him initially cost £68 million but will end up costing £664 million over its life cycle. Scottish companies and Scottish workers will get more benefit from the public sector than they ever would from Andy Kerr and his PFI hospitals.

---

Education (Local Authority Budgets)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on reports that local authorities are considering cutting back education budgets in order to find savings of £270 million in 2010-11. (S3F-2196)

We are providing councils with increasing levels of funding and an increasing share of the total Scottish budget despite the £521 million funding cut imposed by Westminster. It is, of course, for local authorities to manage and prioritise their own budgets and the overall share that goes to schools. However, Michael McMahon will want to note that we now have the figures for 2009-10 education spending by local authorities, which is expected to be 4.1 per cent higher than in the previous year and is significantly in advance of inflation.

It is a miracle. Now for the loaves and fishes.

I believe that Michael McMahon—and, lo, even Lord George Foulkes—will welcome that significant increase in the figures. I know that he will want to deal with facts as opposed to Labour Party fantasy.

I thank the First Minister for his bluster. Does he not recognise that the reality of what is happening in our local authorities is being exposed by councils such as Scottish National Party-led Dundee Council, which tells us in its provisional budget projection that, although it received £1.76 million as its share of the £70 million grant for the council tax freeze, it had to find an additional £5.8 million of cuts to achieve the freeze? Is he aware that each and every local authority in Scotland is having to reduce services to pensioners, children and vulnerable communities because of his Government's discredited concordat with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which has resulted in the inadequate resourcing of our local councils? Will he now accept that responsibility for the £270 million cuts reported by The Herald lies squarely with his Government's concordat funding shortfall and its failure to provide adequate funding for the council tax freeze? Will he now take his historic concordat and consign it to the dustbin of history, or will he simply continue to bluster in the face of the reality facing our local communities?

Michael McMahon's questions are becoming even longer than Iain Gray's. I will talk about the facts again. The quoted cuts and decline in local authority spending are by exactly the percentage of the Westminster cut in the Scottish budget. As I am sure Michael McMahon will acknowledge, when council spending is rising as a percentage of the total Scottish budget year by year—that means that they are getting mair money as a percentage of the total, Michael—if cuts are taking place in councils throughout Scotland, that is because the total budget that is set by Westminster, which has a Labour Government, is declining.

Instead of condemning the Labour local authority spokesmen who believe in the concordat, perhaps Michael McMahon will join me and his Labour local government colleagues in calling on the chancellor not to cut Scotland's budget next year and to stop planning dramatic cuts in Scotland's revenue and capital budget in the next five years. That is not bluster but the facts that Michael McMahon will not face up to because of their implications for the Labour Party throughout Scotland.

---

Scottish Water (Structure and Ownership)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Futures Trust has commissioned consultants KPMG to produce a report as part of its review of the structure and ownership of Scottish Water and whether the terms of reference of the report specifically exclude consideration of models of ownership other than public ownership. (S3F-2195)

The terms of reference ask for options that are publicly acceptable and fundable and take Scottish Water's borrowing out of the Scottish Government's departmental expenditure limit. Scottish Water is a success story in the public sector—water charges in Scotland will fall by 5 per cent in real terms in the next five years and average household charges by 2015 are likely to be some 10 per cent cheaper than those under private provision in England and Wales—so it is fair to say that the phrase "publicly acceptable" rules out Mr McLetchie's option of privatisation and higher water charges for Scotland's companies and consumers.

I am disappointed to hear that the First Minister has such a closed mind before he has even read the consultants' report. If he has such a closed mind on that report, how will he view the recommendations of the independent budget review group that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth announced yesterday? Would the First Minister care to confirm that that group will be able to look afresh at the issue and thereby achieve a saving of more than £150 million in the Scottish budget, which might well be necessary to meet the targets that have been set as a result of the Labour recession?

It is for the Government and the Parliament to decide on public expenditure. The Government's policy is that Scottish Water should be in the public sector. That is based not on prejudice but on performance. For example, the Centre for Public Policy for Regions has said:

"The Scottish Water model shows that it is possible to produce more for less and to improve quality at the same time."—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 15 September 2009; c 1480.]

I have tried to puzzle out why Mr McLetchie is so ideologically committed to privatising Scottish Water. It is clear that that has nothing to do with performance, because Scottish Water is performing well in comparison with the private companies south of the border under the Labour Party's tutelage.

I believe that Mr McLetchie thinks that a gold mine would exist on privatisation. I suggest that he looks at paragraph 8.4 of the Treasury's statement of funding policy, which concerns the possibility of privatising public assets. It says:

"In such circumstances Treasury Ministers reserve the right to reduce the grant to the devolved administration to reflect receipts."

Under privatisation, not only would we have higher water bills and less investment, but the Treasury in London—whether Labour or Tory—would take the receipts from the sale. In those circumstances, someone would have to be ideologically committed and unwilling to consider arguments at all to remain committed to the folly of water privatisation in Scotland.

I listened carefully to the First Minister's reply. If the Scottish Water review is simply about the Scottish budgetary treatment of lending to Scottish Water and its impact on DEL, why cannot it be done by civil servants? Why is a consultative body—in effect, that is all that the Scottish Futures Trust is—hiring private sector consultants to do the work, and what will it cost?

The point about hiring the consultants is to have an examination in detail of whether it is possible to reduce the obligation on the public sector while maintaining Scottish Water in public ownership. That was stated in the SFT's business and corporate plan that was published on 19 November 2009, which I know Jeremy Purvis will have read. I quote:

"In collaboration with other interested parties, work-up, and assess options to increase the efficiency of funding for Scottish Water, whilst retaining public ownership, that could be considered by Scottish Ministers".

When those conclusions come forward, I know that Jeremy Purvis will want to indicate that he does not stand shoulder to shoulder with David McLetchie in wanting to privatise one of Scotland's great natural assets.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—