Plenary, 05 Mar 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, March 5, 2009

Official Report 738KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1500)

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

Will the First Minister remind us why he decided to drop his bill to introduce a local income tax?

There were two significant reasons: one was the indication that I could not persuade the Labour Party, the Conservative party and, probably, the Scottish Green Party to back a sensible measure on behalf of the Scottish people; the second was the looming budget cuts of £500 million that the Westminster Government was threatening. Under those circumstances, we reluctantly had to accept that it was not the time to introduce a fair, representative tax that was well supported by the people of Scotland.

The financial reason that the First Minister gave is now his single transferable excuse for every failure on his Government's part. Let us return to the other reason, which the Scottish National Party made clear when it ditched the local income tax. Mr Swinney said,

"we cannot put together a stable majority … to steer"

the plans through the Parliament. He continued:

"Indeed, Parliaments vote in December last year made it clear that"—[Official Report, 11 February 2009; c 14896.]

the Parliament does not support the local income tax. Tonight, the Parliament will reject the First Minister's referendum bill in exactly the same way. Will he respect the will of the Parliament again and kill the referendum bill too?

Iain Gray will not be able to slip away from the £500 million of looming Labour Party budget cuts because, day after day, as Labour members call for increased public spending on every item under the sun, it will be explained to him what the consequences are.

We live in hope that the Labour Party will see the sense and logic of giving the people of Scotland the right to choose their own future. Indeed, it is less than a year since the Labour group united behind a rallying call for a referendum for the people of Scotland. That was when Wendy Alexander was in charge, but I have discovered that Iain Gray was giving her his complete backing, as his interview with "Newsnight Scotland" on 7 May 2008 shows. Gordon Brewer said, "Whenever the SNP brings forward a bill, you'll have to vote for it." Iain Gray responded, "Well, we've said—and Wendy Alexander has made clear—that we won't stand in the way of the people having a say."

I am confident that Iain Gray will realise the electoral repercussions of trying to deny the Scottish people the right of self-determination and, when the bill is introduced, go back to his position of May last year.

The First Minister is absolutely right: in May last year, Labour offered him a chance to hold his referendum, fair and square. He lost his nerve and slipped away from that opportunity. When the chance was offered, he was found wanting; the chance has gone.

I believe that, right now, Scotland wants us all to concentrate all our efforts on protecting jobs and supporting Scottish families and communities through the global economic downturn. Does the First Minister really think that his referendum bill is a good idea during that downturn?

I remind Iain Gray of his answer to the question that he was asked last May, which was whether he would support a referendum whenever the SNP brought forward a bill. He answered in the affirmative, which was a bit like the declaration the previous day from Duncan McNeil, who said, "Our position is clear. We're not against a referendum bill in principle." Therefore, in principle, the Labour group is in favour of a referendum bill.

Iain Gray should better understand the clear connection. Obviously, we do everything within our existing powers to heed the Scottish economy and stimulate its recovery from this deep recession. There are 50 measures in the six-point plan, all of which are designed to give Scottish businesses and families the maximum help at this difficult time, such as the acceleration of public investment, which will guarantee 5,000 jobs in Scotland over the coming year.

Anyone with a semblance of understanding of the Scottish economy will understand that if we are to reflate the Scottish economy, using the same approach to the current recession as every single Government in the western world, we need borrowing powers and the ability to increase aggregate demand and confidence. That is the connection between the powers of this Parliament and the ability to deliver for the Scottish people.

I remind the First Minister of his answer to our offer a year ago of a referendum, fair and square. His answer was no. He always puts narrow party politics ahead of what is best for Scotland, and never more so than in these times. He has failed on so many issues: local income tax; the Scottish Futures Trust; class sizes; police numbers; house building—the list goes on. On this issue, however, he will not accept his failure, and so diverts the energies of his Government away from the real concerns of Scots, who worry about their jobs, their mortgages and their children's future.

Right now, Scotland needs the referendum bill like it needs a hole in the head. I ask the First Minister again whether he really thinks that a referendum bill is a good idea during these times. If he does not, will he put Scotland first for once, and drop the bill?

I will try to give Iain Gray some advice. Consistency on the referendum is not his strongest suit. I have seen many remarkable statements in politics, but as an extravagant claim in politics, yesterday's quotation to the Press Association from a Labour spokesman—presumably nobody wanted to put their name to it—takes some beating. They said:

"We've been clear all along when it comes to a referendum."

On the Government's programme and manifesto, as Iain Gray well understands, we have taken forward 46 of our 94 manifesto commitments in the first two years of government. Obviously, the Presiding Officer will not allow me to go through all 46—

Go on!

I am encouraged by Mr Rumbles's anxiety to hear them.

You were right the first time, First Minister.

Let us try the top 10. We have abolished rates for tens of thousands of small businesses; restored free education by scrapping the graduate endowment; abolished tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges; funded an additional 1,000 police recruits—[Interruption.]

Order.

—started a phased abolition of prescription charges; saved the accident and emergency departments at Ayr and Monklands; increased payments for free personal care for the first time; introduced a world-leading climate change bill; doubled Scotland's international aid budget; and frozen the council tax for two successive years. Not bad for the first two years; for the next two years, let's bring it on.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1501)

I hope to meet the secretary of state next week, along with the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, to discuss the challenges facing the Scottish economy.

The appalling case of little Brandon Muir is a tragic exposure of Scotland's broken society. One alarming estimate today is that 50,000 similar children could be at risk, living in households that are riddled with addiction, poverty and despair. Does the First Minister have any idea of the true extent of that horrific problem? What is he doing to find out? Does he have any clue? If not, why not?

We have estimates of the number of children at risk from drug-abusing parents. Annabel Goldie quoted figures for the number of children affected. Different statistics exist for the number of children who are still with parents who have a problem with drug addiction, and the figures are between 10,000 and 20,000. The estimates of the numbers of children whose parents have an alcohol addiction are even greater—they are substantially greater.

In a case such as this one, in which a young child has died in desperate and painful circumstances, one thing that we have to do as a Parliament and as a society—and I appreciate the way in which Annabel Goldie has been addressing the issue—is to ensure that we are doing everything that we can within our terms and responsibilities to meet the challenges that we face. That applies to all of us: it applies to this Parliament; it applies to the Government; and it applies to social work departments and local government. It is our obligation and responsibility.

One thing I would say is this: the culpability and guilt lie with the person who perpetrated the crime, and not with the social work department or the police. They and we have a responsibility to make society as safe as we can for every young child, but the guilt and culpability lie with the person who perpetrated the crime.

I do not doubt the First Minister's sincerity, but it is deeply alarming that the Scottish Government clearly does not know the full extent of the problem. Unless one knows the extent of a problem, one cannot start to find a solution. We have found that out with the issue of drug abuse.

Will the First Minister pledge, as a matter of urgency, to get hold of that information? Brandon Muir's death needs to be a wake-up call to us all. We need to stop family breakdown; we need to tackle the scourge of drugs; and we need to fix Scotland's broken society for the sake of our children.

Together we have embarked on a new drugs strategy. We are aware of the extent of the problem.

People in the chamber should be aware of one of the benefits that we have in Scotland: we have a robust system for child care and social work inspection. That has been carried through by Her Majesty's inspectorate over the past couple of years. We know exactly which councils are performing superbly in this area—and there are some—and we know where services need to be improved. We know which councils are required to take strong action. In the three councils where such a requirement has been identified to date, strong action is taking place.

An enormous amount of work is being done to try to secure the safety of every child in Scotland. Yes, we know the extent of the problem. We know how many children are looked after, we know how many are with foster carers, and we know how many are in children's homes or residential schools.

However, Annabel Goldie is right to point out that, however exact our efforts in social work and in local and central Government, there is a real risk to many thousands of children in Scotland. Therefore, we are pursuing the policies that we are pursuing not just to help protect each individual child but to help attack some of the underlying causes. In this particular case, the underlying cause was clearly the blight of drug addiction throughout Scotland. The policies are the right way for Government and society to approach such issues.

In relation to a case south of the border, there was an exchange during Prime Minister's question time that I think neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of the Opposition felt, in retrospect, did them credit. The right way for us to approach the issue is the way in which Parliament and Government are approaching it. We are attempting to make each child safe, but also to tackle the underlying problems that create the danger in the first place.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at next week's meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1502)

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

I broadly agree with Annabel Goldie's line of questioning, and I want to ask the First Minister a couple of different questions in relation to that dreadful incident.

There is no shortage of separate reviews and studies in response to the tragic case of Brandon Muir. However, the case is surely serious enough for a minister to be put in charge to pull all the investigations together. Social work, criminal justice and health are all involved; there is only one way to bring them together and that is through Government. Will the First Minister name a minister—one of his colleagues—who will have a direct leadership role in responding to this tragedy?

A minister has direct responsibility: Adam Ingram has direct responsibility in this area.

Inquiries are taking place, and I have every confidence in Peter Wilson, the former chief constable of Fife, who will conduct a rapid and independent interagency inquiry. I am sure that that inquiry will tell us what needs to be done. If there are legislative gaps, they will be filled. If action has to be taken, action will have to be taken.

We should be confident that the people who are conducting the inquiries will tell us everything about the case and will also indicate wider lessons to be applied across society.

I welcome the First Minister's clear commitment to have a minister in charge of what has emerged.

This morning's Daily Record newspaper carries the shocking views of Brandon Muir's mother that it was the social workers' job to tell her that Cunningham was evil. Does that not show that she was incapable of judgments that would keep her child safe? I cannot be the only person who thinks that that should have added to the evidence that the authorities should intervene to keep the little boy safe, as the grandparents warned that they needed to.

As the First Minister says, it is right that we debate the balance of risks and try to get the balance right between families and social work. However, the debate must lead to strengthened services and changed practices. According to the Government's figures, about 50,000 children in Scotland live with drug-abusing parents. How many of those children are currently being reviewed, given Brandon Muir's dreadful murder?

Let us be clear that that statistic is the number of children who might be affected by parental drug misuse. We estimate that between 10,000 and 20,000 children might still be living with a parent who misuses drugs.

On the detail of the individual case, we should allow the independent inquiries that are being carried out by people of high calibre to take place before we draw any conclusions. The contrast between the case that we are discussing and other well-publicised cases is that the young child had very recently entered into circumstances of danger—those circumstances were not long standing. I am sure that, right now, people in the social work department in Dundee will be agonising about what action they might have taken slightly earlier than the programmed action. We should allow the independent inquiries to give us their insight before we start drawing conclusions as to who might be to blame.

The final point that I will make to the Parliament on the issue is that we have not only a robust system of inspection in Scotland—of which we should be proud as it identifies problems before individual tragedies happen—but many thousands of social workers on the front line who deal with agonising decisions and difficult circumstances on a daily basis. Whatever faults there might be in the Brandon Muir case or any other case, it would be difficult and extremely damaging for any member of the Parliament to allocate blame to social work as a profession—certainly, nobody in the Government would do that. We should all remember that, in the vast and overwhelming majority of cases, the people who take those agonising and difficult decisions are doing their best for society and for the children who are under their care.

The First Minister will be aware that, this week, the Kinross-shire cashmere mill, which is a vital employer in the area, has been forced to introduce a four-day week for its 205-strong workforce. What action will the Scottish Government take to help the textile industry throughout Scotland?

The Government is making a range of interventions to assist and help the Scottish economy. On our manufacturing sector, as the member knows, the Scottish manufacturing advisory service has been doubled in strength, precisely to give the maximum assistance to our manufacturing industry at this difficult time.

---

Alcohol

To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government is making in reducing the impact of overconsumption of alcohol. (S3F-1515)

We have already taken action to reduce alcohol overconsumption in Scotland. The record investment of more than £120 million over three years will make a difference to thousands of Scots through improved prevention, treatment and support services. The scale of the problem requires us to do more. That is why, this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice published our response to the consultation on alcohol misuse and outlined our next steps. "Changing Scotland's Relationship with Alcohol: A Framework for Action" outlines proposals for specific legislation that is designed to effect change in the short term, as well as measures that will help to create a change in cultural attitudes in the long term.

If I may, I will quote:

"Alcohol has cost Scotland dearly. Through its significant contribution to violence, it has placed an immense financial burden on this country. … Fundamentally, if you want to reduce violence then you need to reduce access to alcohol. We know that the group most at risk from violence is young males aged 10-29, so if you limit access to alcohol in certain areas then it can only be a good thing, especially as it is done with local agreement and is locally relevant."

Those are the words of Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, the head of the violence reduction unit. Does the First Minister agree with that view?

I certainly think that we would do well to listen carefully to the experience of serving police officers. We should also reflect on experience in the pilot areas, where restrictions on sales at weekends and sometimes more generally have been tried over the past year or so, which gives us strong indications. In Stenhousemuir, there was a 40 per cent reduction in breach of the peace offences; in the first week of the Cupar pilot, there was a drop of 60 per cent in calls to the police relating to antisocial behaviour; and, during the Armadale pilot, there was a reduction in the number of calls about youth disorder and vandalism. We should listen carefully to the experience of the professionals who are working in this field. We should listen also to Nigel Don, who makes the point in exactly the right way when he says that those who are most at risk are young people themselves.

Why did the First Minister say last week that mandatory challenge 21 schemes and alcohol treatment and testing orders are in place when they are not? I ask that not to debate veracity in the chamber; I ask him to agree that all parties wish to tackle alcohol abuse, that sensible proposals from all sides should be seriously considered and that the final decision on major policy changes in this area must be for the whole Parliament.

I said that they were coming in in September, and tried to inform and help Richard Baker along those lines. He would do well not to assume that everyone, including ministers, is always trying to put a trick over on him.

I have to warn Richard Baker that I think that he is heading for a substantial fall on the issue of police numbers. I give him that cautionary piece of advice on that matter, because I know that, if he proves to be wrong on that issue, he will be the first to come to the chamber to apologise.

I think that the First Minister agrees that legislation is not a cure-all, and that educating our young people plays an important part in the matter that we are discussing. In that context, I suggest that either he or his ministers should visit Peebles high school to meet the members of the up to you group, who go to the feeder primaries to talk about the consequences of alcohol consumption. That is a very successful project for the primary pupils and the secondary pupils.

The framework for action indicates a number of ways in which we intend to take forward our work to support young people to make more informed choices about alcohol. Officials have already visited the project that Christine Grahame has mentioned, and we find it extremely interesting. Of course, local authorities have to determine how best to deploy resources for education, including substance misuse education. Within the hugely expanded budget in this area, there will be many projects that point the way to a better future for the young people of Scotland, and the project that Christine Grahame mentions is an extremely interesting example of that work.

The First Minister is fond of trumpeting his support for the Scotch whisky industry. However, on Monday, Gavin Hewitt, the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, said of the Government's minimum-pricing proposals:

"It is hard to believe any Scottish Government would bring forward proposals that are likely to be both illegal in international trade law and risk damaging the whisky industry. Regrettably, minimum pricing achieves both and undermines our success in breaking down illegal discrimination against Scotch Whisky around the world."

Why is the First Minister determined to press ahead with those unworkable proposals when they will so damage the industry that he claims to support?

We are confident of the legal position of our proposals.

I could answer Murdo Fraser's question by giving him a range of quotations from people who support the Government's proposals, including people in the licensed trade and the drinks industry. However, there is a position of greater principle. Scotch whisky's huge success in the international marketplace is based on the concept of its being a premium drink of exceptionally high quality. Even a casual observation of our proposals—I know that Murdo Fraser will have examined them—will show that they are directed at the low-quality, high-strength drinks that are causing enormous damage to Scottish society.

Last week, I attended a meeting of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States at which the president of the association commenced his speech by speaking about Scotch whisky's profile in the international marketplace as a high-quality, premium drink that is marketed with a socially responsible attitude. That is exactly what the future success of Scottish whisky should be based on.

---

Class Sizes

To ask the First Minister, in light of the recently published pupil census in Scotland statistics, whether the Scottish Government remains confident of fulfilling its pledge to reduce class sizes in primaries 1, 2 and 3 to 18 pupils or less. (S3F-1523)

Under the terms of the concordat, local government agreed to make year-on-year progress in reducing primary 1 to primary 3 classes to a maximum of 18. Some authorities are making faster progress than others, but we will continue to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to deliver on the terms of the concordat.

As with the First Minister's response to Iain Gray's questions, I hesitate over whether to admire his chutzpah or worry at his capacity for self-delusion.

Can the First Minister confirm that the proportion of pupils who are in classes that meet his class size target rose this year from 12 per cent to a staggering 13 per cent? Does he believe that that is someone else's fault or his own responsibility?

I always find that when a back bencher has to praise his leader retrospectively, it usually means that his leader is in deep trouble. If I was Iain Gray, I would watch out on matters such as that. [Interruption.]

Order.

I am always glad—[Interruption.]

Order.

I am always glad to have the support of Mr Rumbles when I make such comments. [Interruption.]

Order in the chamber.

With regard to class size reductions, it is clear that there is a huge indication of discrepancies throughout Scotland—in the context, of course, of record figures for the number of classes that contain 18 pupils or less. All local authorities can take some pleasure and pride in the achievement of a situation in which the highest number of pupils in a class is declining dramatically. There has been a 15 per cent drop in the number of primary 1 to primary 3 pupils who are taught in classes of more than 25. That should be of some interest, because I do not think that any member in the chamber would agree with Labour ministers south of the border that class sizes of 50 and above do not really matter, as it was put. We believe that low class sizes matter, do we not?

The context is also one in which some councils—West Lothian Council, to take a random example—are achieving a 14.8 per cent increase in the number of their pupils who are in classes of 18 or fewer. In case people think that I am making a political point about a Scottish National Party-controlled council, I note that substantial increases in the number of classes that contain less than 18 pupils have been achieved by Midlothian Council, which is controlled by Labour; Dumfries and Galloway council, which is controlled by the Conservatives and the Scottish Liberal Democrats; West Dunbartonshire Council, which is controlled by the SNP with independent support; and Scottish Borders Council, which is controlled by a coalition of independents, Conservatives and SLDs.

The people who live in those council areas would be entitled—in addition to complimenting the councils that are making that progress—to ask Glasgow City Council, for example, why, if progress is possible in those councils, it is not possible throughout Scotland.

---

VisitScotland

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had about the future of VisitScotland following the withdrawal of funding by the City of Edinburgh Council. (S3F-1521)

On 2 March, the day after it was reported that the City of Edinburgh Council would withdraw funding, the convener of the council's economic development committee said:

"We will still be buying services from VisitScotland".

The Government and VisitScotland share the key aim of doing what is best for Scotland and all its constituent cities and regions by maximising the attraction of visitors during the year of homecoming and beyond.

There is a widespread sense of disengagement from and unease with VisitScotland among many councils and tourism providers, following the abolition of the old tourist boards by the previous Labour-Liberal Administration. Does the First Minister accept that a situation could shortly arise in which councils such as Scottish Borders Council will effectively be subsidising the promotion of tourism in Glasgow and Edinburgh by VisitScotland, while those cities' own councils might not be paying anything towards that?

It is not enormously helpful to look at things in that way. I have just read out a quotation from the relevant councillor in Edinburgh that points out that the council is still contracting VisitScotland's services. VisitScotland has service level agreements with 30 out of 32 councils in Scotland. I know that the homecoming campaign is enthusiastically supported by members on all sides of the chamber, and I am delighted to say that all 32 local authorities in Scotland are enthusiastically signed up to that great campaign.

The changes that the Scottish Government made in the autumn of 2007 to dilute the local area boards—changes that were supported by the Conservatives—have caused particular concern in rural areas. Can the First Minister guarantee that no council will withdraw core funding? Under the single outcome agreements, will councils continue to fund tourist information centres in rural parts of Scotland? If they do not, that will cause concern about support for our local tourism sector.

I see that the Tories and the Liberal party want to blame each other for this, that and the next thing. It would be helpful for the Parliament to remember that some 8 per cent of VisitScotland's total funding comes from local authorities. I have just pointed out that VisitScotland has service level agreements with 30 of the 32 councils and that all 32 are signed up to the homecoming campaign.

Under the Government's budget plans, we are about to reach a significant milestone. In 2010-11, VisitScotland's budget will exceed that of VisitBritain—it will be £46 million compared with £40 million. That substantial budget is well justified and merited. It can bring substantial economic benefits for Scotland. Rather than quibble and quarrel about who was responsible for what in the past, why cannot we get behind the efforts of our national tourism agency and the local authorities, who are doing their best for the area? We should take that great industry in Scotland forward with maximum political support.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise for giving you no notice, but I seek your guidance on whether the answer that I received from the First Minister was in line with standing orders on courtesy to other members, particularly as, unlike the First Minister, I was careful not to deviate from the serious subject matter of Nigel Don's question. Is that an issue on which you can rule, or is it only a matter for the ministerial code, in relation to which the First Minister himself makes judgments?

As I have repeated many times in the chamber, ministers are responsible for the content of their answers. There is no other answer that I can give you.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—