Plenary, 04 Dec 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, December 4, 2008

Official Report 709KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1241)

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

There was widespread concern in April when the Scottish Government suddenly announced the extension of First ScotRail's contract to 2014. There was no consultation with passengers or with the workforce or with trade unions. Indeed, there was no consultation with anyone at all. Audit Scotland was scheduled to review the operation of the franchise, but ministers could not be bothered waiting for that either. Last week, Audit Scotland produced its report, which raised concerns and led to the resignation of a senior Transport Scotland official. Why did the First Minister fail to consult on the franchise review and on the extension options? Why did he not wait for Audit Scotland's report?

I have read the Audit Scotland report that Iain Gray is brandishing. I found it interesting to see that, on the substance of the benefits of the franchise, Audit Scotland says the following:

"Transport Scotland's appraisal process was rigorous and has resulted in a guaranteed £73.1 million investment by First ScotRail".

That is what the heading of paragraph 57 says.

"Transport Scotland's management arrangements are generally effective",

says the heading above paragraph 27.

"First ScotRail's performance to date has been good, and continues to improve",

says page 24 of the report.

I would quarrel with one thing Iain Gray said in his introductory question: he said that the extension to the contract was unexpected, a surprise. I have looked back over the history of the contract. On 5 December 2002, the answer to a parliamentary question announced both the franchise length and the possibility of a three-year contract extension. That parliamentary question was answered by one Iain Gray.

That is true, and I remember the lengthy consultation process we went through to award the franchise.

The Audit Scotland report says positive things about First ScotRail's performance and about the management of the franchise, but it says some scathing things about the Scottish Government's handling of the franchise extension. It states:

"The lack of consultation created practical difficulties."

Those practical difficulties will cost the taxpayer £1.5 million for closed-circuit television cameras in Strathclyde stations because the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change did not bother to ask where that money would be found between 2011 and 2014. Clearly, Audit Scotland believes that there may be other financial holes that will also need to be filled.

Will the First Minister admit that the failure to consult key stakeholders in advance was a serious and costly omission?

The Audit Scotland report sets out governance issues, which Transport Scotland will take on board and improve upon, but that does not deflect from the £73.1 million of investment that is identified in the report. Nor does it tell us why the matter was such a big surprise to Iain Gray, who six years previously opened up the possibility of a three-year extension.

The contract involves £2.5 billion of taxpayers' money. The 215,000 passengers a day who depend on the service have just seen their fares soar. The contract was extended with no consultation, no assessment criteria and—most damning of all—no business case. Audit Scotland states:

"Transport Scotland did not provide the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change with a fully documented business case, taking the view that presentations to the minister were more appropriate."

That is public spending by PowerPoint. Perhaps the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change did not feel the need for a business case, but did the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth not ask to see one? Did the First Minister not ask to see a business case? Did no one in the cabinet ask what the business case was? Did the First Minister sign off the decision? If he did, on what basis did he do that?

On the basis that it would provide improvements for rail passengers and railway workers in Scotland.

I noticed that Iain Gray slipped in a remark that indicated that he does not like the fare increases. No one likes fare increases, whether they are rail passengers or anyone else, but as far as I understand his questions Iain Gray is not challenging the real benefits that Audit Scotland identified the three-year extension will bring in the way of investment in and improvements to passenger services.

Fares will increase by 6 per cent from 2 January, which means that the average Scottish fare will be £2.65. In the United Kingdom, it is £4.60. Other operators have similar average fares. Chiltern Railways' average fare increase is 7.5 per cent, First Capital Connect's is 9 per cent and CrossCountry's is 11 per cent. No one likes fare increases, but will Iain Gray acknowledge that the investment pattern, the additional millions of pounds that are coming into our railways and the fare structure look a lot better in Scotland than they do elsewhere?

I am challenging an approach to government that too often poses too many questions about the way in which the Government goes about its business. What about the First Minister's cack-handed intervention in the Trump affair, or five ministers involving themselves in a planning application in Aviemore? What about the headlines alleging cronyism when it comes to handing out grants? Now we find that a multi-billion pound contract has no business case and a conflict of interest at its heart. There are too many questions and no answers. The Government clearly believes that the normal rules of transparency and good governance do not apply. It clearly believes that a nod and a wink will do, but it will not.

What is the question?

The question is coming; do not worry.

The Parliament's Audit Committee will want to consider Audit Scotland's report. Will the First Minister volunteer to appear before that committee and answer its questions about how the decision was made?

Of course. I am the first First Minister ever to appear before a committee. As far as the Trump affair is concerned, if it had been left to the Labour Party we can be absolutely certain that that investment would not have come to Scotland.

As far as procedures are concerned, at no stage in his line of questioning has Iain Gray challenged the real benefits identified by Audit Scotland for passengers and rail travellers in Scotland. That is important because the performance of Scotland's railways and the investment being made in Network Rail are some of the few areas in Scottish life that are protected from the £500 million of cuts that the Westminster Government is making.

On good and proper governance, I assure Iain Gray that Kenny MacAskill has personally assured me that he will not be sending in the polis to raid any MSP's office. [Interruption.]

Order.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1242)

I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in due course.

Two weeks ago, I challenged Nicola Sturgeon on the deeply disturbing issue of hospital-acquired infections. A lot of the recent discussion has understandably centred on one incident in one hospital, but our focus has to be wider and we must be proactive, not merely reactive.

It was clear from what Miss Sturgeon said about monitoring such infections that the Scottish Government is still taking a health board-by-health board, hospital-by-hospital approach and that it aspires to extend that to real-time tracking by clinical specialty. To cut through the technical jargon, that is not good enough. We need to move to ward-by-ward, bed-by-bed real-time tracking if we want to know whether another Vale of Leven crisis threatens at any point in any day in any hospital.

We can do more. An electronic bed-management system that is perfectly capable of being extended to monitor bed and ward infections has already been successfully piloted in Aberdeen royal infirmary. Does the First Minister agree that, given what we know is out there, his Government's response to date has been tardy and inadequate? Will he now back the Scottish Conservatives' call for a bed-by-bed infection tracking pilot?

I do not agree that the Government's response has been tardy and inadequate. Annabel Goldie should acknowledge the substantial actions that have been taken to tackle hospital-acquired infections, not least of which are the trebling of available funding compared with that under the previous Administration; the setting of national targets to reduce Clostridium difficile cases; the provision of extra funding for prescribing policies, which are a key factor in tackling that dreadful condition; raising hygiene performance; the toughening up of cleaning standards; and, which is important, the empowering of senior charge nurses, the establishment of an independent inspectorate and the banning of the privatisation of cleaning contracts for the future. That is a substantial category of action.

Annabel Goldie made a specific point about Aberdeen royal infirmary. I am aware of the pilot exercise there. Obviously, we support that new technology in the national health service and we are perfectly happy to consider anything that will improve performance. More efficient bed management and the tracking of patient movements mean that NHS staff can manage their patients more effectively and efficiently. If the approach that has been described is used to its full potential, it could offer a valuable addition to local surveillance. The tracking system has benefits. When the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing visits NHS Grampian next week, she will see the pilot model at first hand, consider the planned extension to other facilities in the NHS Grampian area, and find out whether it would be appropriate to roll out the scheme throughout the national health service.

No one denies that these are financially challenging times, not least for the health service. That is why we must spend our NHS resources on clinical imperatives, not on political targets. The technology that I mentioned can save lives. I have a detailed briefing on it, which I am happy to send to the First Minister today.

Does the First Minister recognise the urgency and necessity of addressing the problem now? We have the means to do so, but we now need the political will. It is no longer a question of if; it is a question of when. Will the First Minister undertake to make a statement in the Parliament as soon as possible on when and where a bed-by-bed infection-tracking pilot will start?

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will visit Aberdeen to see the pilot scheme on Monday, and she will certainly report back to Parliament on what is found. The pilot offers a promising addition to the range of measures that are being taken to tackle hospital-acquired infections. At this stage, we must consider and evaluate the pilot and its cost effectiveness, but the fact that the cabinet secretary is going to see the scheme so early and that we are interested in its being rolled out over other facilities in NHS Grampian indicates that we see merit in its results thus far and that we are engaged and interested in finding out whether it can help us across the whole health service.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1243)

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Yesterday, the chief executive of Lloyds TSB, Eric Daniels, toured Government, parliamentary and media offices. I heard nothing yesterday and have read nothing today that says what the impact on jobs, branches and headquarters functions will be as a result of Lloyds TSB's takeover of HBOS. Is the First Minister any better informed than the rest of us about what the specific impact on Scotland will be?

I was not privy to what Eric Daniels and Archie Kane said to Tavish Scott, but one aspect that they discussed with me was the formation of a Scottish board structure to be chaired by Archie Kane, which would be an organisational gain on what has gone before. That should be welcomed, but does it mean that we know a great deal more about the potential threat to competition and jobs and the threat of rationalisation? No, but nonetheless we heard something new yesterday that should be welcomed because we should welcome anything in a structure that protects Scottish decision making.

The First Minister will be aware that, next week, there is to be a hearing of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, to consider competition in banking. The Office of Fair Trading's report on the merger makes it plain that Scotland and Scottish business are most at risk from a drop in competition and a rise in bank charges. The Competition Commission should not have been bypassed by ministers on such a substantial takeover. The case has been taken to the tribunal by a group of Scottish businesspeople—the Merger Action Group—who have raised significant sums of money to pay for the appeal.

Is there not a place for the Scottish Government in the process, which is in the interests of Scottish business? We now have small business against big business and big government. The Treasury is threatening to enforce big costs against the challengers. Will the First Minister therefore examine the case for providing legal support for the challenge?

The Merger Action Group has gone to the Competition Appeal Tribunal precisely because it exists to allow what are termed aggrieved parties—they could be customers, shareholders or staff members—to progress an appeal against decisions of the secretary of state that they think are improper or hurried or have been prejudiced in any way. I can tell Tavish Scott that, on Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth wrote to the hon Mr Justice Barling, the president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. We did that precisely because we share several of the Merger Action Group's concerns. I will make the letter available to the Parliament.

We have concerns about the impact on competition, which we previously set out in the Government's submission to the Office of Fair Trading. The Office of Fair Trading shared many of those concerns, but they were subsequently ignored or set aside by the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The second aspect that we drew to Mr Justice Barling's attention was the suggestion—I believe that it was from Treasury counsel—that the matter should be settled under English jurisdiction. We thought that that was inappropriate, as both companies are registered in Scotland. I am delighted to say that, whether because of the letter from Mr Swinney or because of submissions from elsewhere, although the hearing will take place in London next week, Mr Justice Barling has settled that the matter will take place under Scottish jurisdiction, with any appeal being made to the Court of Session.

The procedures in the CAT are important and the Merger Action Group is perfectly entitled to exercise them. The matters to which Tavish Scott alludes, about which we are all concerned, are legitimate issues. The heart of the issue is that the Government ministers concerned, whether the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, should deliver the level playing field that we were promised. I think that they have not done so. We will look with interest to see what the CAT decides.

I will take a constituency question from Pauline McNeill.

Does the First Minister agree that the announcement by The Herald group in my constituency that 240 journalists and staff will be sacked and invited to reapply for their jobs is a draconian employment practice in a modern Scotland and that it should be widely condemned? Does he agree that, notwithstanding the challenges that the media industry faces, The Herald and its sister papers have an important status in Scottish life and that the dramatic cut in jobs will be universally unwelcome? Given the public interest in the announcement, will the First Minister urge the management to negotiate with the trade unions to aim for a fairer process and a properly negotiated outcome?

Yes, I agree with that. It would be better if the management went into negotiations with the unions. This is a difficult time for the Scottish media and press and there is a range of possible redundancies in several outlets, but it would be far better to approach them through negotiation between management and unions.

The owners of The Herald newspaper might wish to reflect on another aspect: if another employer in Scotland did the same—if an entire workforce was made redundant and people were asked to reapply for their jobs—what would be the editorial stance of The Herald, given its traditions? If we imagine, as I do, that, given its traditions, that newspaper would appeal for exactly what Pauline McNeill suggests, the owners of The Herald group should think carefully about the credibility of their newspaper in the light of the actions and style that they have adopted.

I am sure that we all agree that our communities are now much safer as a result of the imprisonment of Peter Tobin for the rest of his life. In light of the fact that DNA played such a crucial role in bringing Peter Tobin and others to justice, will the First Minister assure the chamber that he will keep an open mind on how we can legislate further to give our police officers additional powers in connection with the retention of DNA samples?

We have Professor Fraser's report, of course. We always look at such matters with a view to balancing the advantages and disadvantages of public safety.

Although many issues arise from the Tobin conviction that we must think about carefully, one thing that we should do is thank our police and prosecution services for making such an effective job of the trial. Although nothing can be said to temper the tragedy that affects the victims of that evil man, nonetheless the trial in Scotland was extremely satisfactory in its conduct and disposal.

---

Violence Against Women

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will support the 16 days of global activism to tackle violence against women. (S3F-1253)

The 16 days of global activism is an important feature of this time of year. On Thursday 6 December, during the days of action last year, I signed the statement of intent. By signing the statement I pledged this Government's commitment to tackle violence against women over the parliamentary session.

Specifically, the Government has committed more than £44 million to address violence against women. That includes funding every rape crisis centre in Scotland and working with Rape Crisis Scotland on its hard-hitting, awareness-raising campaign. We have launched the national domestic abuse delivery plan for children and young people and we have provided funding for the Scottish domestic abuse helpline, the national rape crisis helpline and the national offices of Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland. We have also provided funding for a network of dedicated children's workers across Scotland. This year, we have continued with that commitment by holding what has now become an annual Scottish Government debate. This year's debate, which will take place later today, will be on forced marriages under a motion lodged by the Minister for Communities and Sport.

I am sure that the First Minister will want to extend a warm welcome to Scottish Women's Aid and Amnesty International, whose representatives are outside the Parliament today.

Women with insecure immigration status who are fleeing violence are unable to access public funds, which pay for refuge accommodation and support, so will the First Minister state whether the Scottish Government is able, within its powers, to offer financial support? Will he make representations to the Home Office to exempt women who are fleeing violence from the no-recourse-to-public-funds rule?

We will continue to work with the Home Office to implement the new scheme, which was announced earlier this year by Vernon Coaker, a Home Office minister, to provide women on a spousal visa who have no recourse to public funds with a contribution to housing and living costs of up to £1,000. The Government has set up a working group to look at the matter further and it will report to ministers when that scheme is in operation.

It is true that, under the devolved settlement, the Scottish Government cannot go beyond the remit of the Home Office, but we will continue to engage with the Home Office and ensure that the views of this Parliament are put forward to protect many vulnerable women.

---

Educational Institute of Scotland Survey

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government intends to respond to the findings of an Educational Institute of Scotland survey that children's education in nearly two thirds of Scotland's local authorities is being harmed due to a downturn in classroom spending. (S3F-1258)

The Government has put record resources into local government. It is, of course, for local authorities to determine how best to use those resources within the context of the historic concordat. We will continue to work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to deliver the best education for all Scotland's young people.

The report to which Rhona Brankin refers appears to be incomplete and localised. I am delighted to tell her that we now have available the estimated outturn figures for local authorities throughout Scotland for the current financial year. They show that the average increase in education budgets this year is 5.5 per cent. I hope that Rhona Brankin is able to change her supplementary question.

The increase has been possible because the Government rejected Labour Party calls for 3 per cent efficiency savings, which, under the hungry caterpillar theory, could not be reinvested locally. We will continue to resist the annual cuts of £500 million that the Westminster Government wants to impose on Scotland. Labour's education cuts pose a huge danger to, and would damage, the future of Scottish education.

The First Minister is always keen to trumpet the so-called historic concordat with local government, but back in the real world teacher numbers in Scotland fell by 900 in the past quarter and the number of non-teaching staff fell by 400 in the same period. In some areas, we now have the disgraceful spectacle of teachers having to pay for stationery out of their own pockets. Is it not time the First Minister stopped passing the buck, got out of his ministerial limo and listened to teachers, parents and pupils throughout Scotland? They were promised better schools, but they are now witnessing the stark reality of SNP education cuts.

I note that Rhona Brankin was not able to alter her supplementary question. I say to her that the source is the provisional outturn budget estimate returns, which are the returns from local government, and they show a 5.5 per cent increase in education budgets across Scotland.

One of the reasons I like the historic concordat is that it appeals to consensus in Scottish society. I am not saying for a second that only SNP councils have increased their education budgets. I acknowledge that there is an increase of 10 per cent in the North Lanarkshire budget, which is controlled by the Labour Party, and an increase of 11 per cent in South Ayrshire, which has a Conservative minority administration. The SNP administration in Stirling has increased its education budget by more than 14 per cent.

Bearing it in mind that facts are chiels that winna ding and that those are the figures from local government itself, at what stage will the Labour Party acknowledge that the real threat to Scottish education is the £500 million of Westminster cuts that are coming down the road?

Does the First Minister agree that Glasgow City Council's decision to reduce teacher numbers is purely political, given that its education budget is increasing? Does he share my concern that the Labour Party in Glasgow is playing politics with the education of Glasgow children?

I have been generous, because that is my nature, in my comments on the cross-party complexion of councils throughout Scotland. In the same tone, I acknowledge that, within the average 5.5 per cent increase, no council has reported a decrease in its education budget. There are new teachers in Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, Midlothian, Perth and Kinross, Scottish Borders and West Lothian.

In the context of rising education budgets, it is the case that some councils in Scotland seem to place a higher priority than others on employing teachers. I hope that there is not some political machination from the Labour Party to instruct its councils not to reduce class sizes because it has never liked the historic concordat.

---

First ScotRail Passenger Rail Franchise (Extension)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the Auditor General for Scotland's report into the extension to the First ScotRail passenger rail franchise. (S3F-1266)

As previously discussed, we welcome Audit Scotland's comment that the rigorous evaluation that went into the extension option appraisal has guaranteed more than £73 million of new money to benefit passengers, taxpayers and rail employees throughout Scotland. As I also said earlier, the report also highlights issues of governance for Transport Scotland, which will be considered for future improvement.

I listened with interest to the earlier exchanges on this issue. As publication of the strategic transport projects review is imminent, how can the First Minister expect the people of Scotland to have any sort of confidence that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change can be trusted to make the right decisions about vital transport links when he is quite happy to commit an extra £800 million of taxpayers' money to FirstScotrail without ever seeing a documented business case—a decision that, according to Audit Scotland, should not have been made in the way that it was?

I return to the real benefits that Audit Scotland has identified with regard to the decisions that were made. As for the issues of governance that are highlighted in the report, they will be looked at and Transport Scotland will make the relevant improvements.