Plenary, 07 Jun 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, June 7, 2007

Official Report 752KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-27)

I have a number of important engagements that I am prepared to speak about, and an important meeting on the Commonwealth games, which I know will have Jack McConnell's support and the support of all parties in the Parliament.

The campaign by Glasgow and Scotland to win the 2014 Commonwealth games has the full support of all members on the Labour benches.

Does the First Minister agree that one of the first responsibilities of a Government is to ensure public safety and to protect the innocent and convict the guilty? Does he agree that Governments should take all possible steps to achieve that?

Yes. That is exactly why the Cabinet Secretary for Justice set out our strategy for crime and reoffending, to make Scotland not just a stronger place but a safer place for all in society.

I welcome that assurance. Does the First Minister agree that the scientific evidence provided by DNA samples can acquit the innocent and convict the guilty?

DNA science, like many forensic sciences, plays a powerful and increasing role in our justice system.

In 2004, the law was changed in England and Wales. As of 2005, individual DNA samples, which in Scotland would have been destroyed, had helped to solve 88 murders, 45 attempted murders, 116 rapes and 62 other sexual offences. Does the First Minister think that it is acceptable for the law in Scotland to offer less protection than there is elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

I will reflect closely on what Jack McConnell said. There must be detailed matters to be considered—if there were not, I presume that the previous Administration would have implemented what Jack McConnell wants. However, in the spirit of the Parliament, I will consider the matter and write to Jack McConnell.

I agree with the First Minister that there are details to be considered, such as the case studies in the annual report on the operation of the law in England and Wales, which is presented to the House of Commons. For example, one study notes that a male was arrested in February 2005 for violent disorder in what was described as a family feud in his home. His DNA was taken for the first time, but he was released without charge because of the nature of the evidence. However, in July 2005, 25 miles away, a stranger rape occurred and there were no clues about who the rapist might be until that man's DNA was found to match the profile of the DNA found under the victim's fingernails.

Does Alex Salmond agree that there are matters on which we can work with a fresh approach across the parties in this new Parliament? Before the election, Scottish Labour respected the views of our coalition partners and the majority in the Parliament on the retention of DNA samples, but we have a different Parliament now. There is evidence that the retention of DNA samples works. It is effective, it protects the public and it convicts the guilty. In the spirit of open debate and consensus that the First Minister promised us, will he join me in urging the new Justice Committee, which the Parliament will establish this afternoon, to consider the evidence and prepare a report on how we can extend the database in Scotland, so that we can learn lessons from elsewhere, help to tackle crime and secure more convictions in serious crimes in Scotland?

The Justice Committee's agenda will of course be a matter for that committee. It would not be in the spirit of consensus politics for the First Minister to start instructing parliamentary committees on what to say. However, if Jack McConnell is looking for a personal point of view—

What about Audit Scotland?

Order.

On the basis that there are evidence and case studies to be properly considered, it appears that I, personally, might have more sympathy for the case that Jack McConnell is making than his former coalition partners did.

What about Kenny MacAskill?

Order.

There are matters that need to be properly considered. It might just be that there are matters that impinge on public safety and public concern on which we can show to the public that we can rise above party politicking and that we can make cases based on evidence. If the case that Jack McConnell is proposing is that there should be a review of the matter based on evidence, bearing in mind the clear concerns on civil liberties from the Liberal Democrats and the need to consider that carefully, and that the Parliament should come to a united conclusion, that is a useful way to proceed.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-28)

A range of vital issues for the future of Scotland.

I hope that those vital issues will include sentencing. The Scottish Executive plans to replace jail sentences of less than six months with community sentences. Is the First Minister really telling us that people who pose a risk to the public, such as muggers, housebreakers and violent individuals who assault and terrify their partners, will not get the punishment that would give their victims justice?

No, that is not what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is proposing. I take the view that

"There are too many people now in our prisons who shouldn't be. We must ensure they are not full of less serious offenders whose behaviour could be better addressed through tough community sentences.

Reducing this churn of short-term prisoners will ensure time and resources can be better focused on tackling more serious offenders."

Those were the words of the previous Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, on 31 October 2006. For many people across politics, across society and across political parties, that is sound common sense, and this Administration will seek to implement it in a way that the previous Administration failed to do.

As to who should be in our prisons, I prefer to leave that to our judges, not to the opinion of the First Minister. The First Minister cannot ignore the legitimate concerns of victims and their entitlement to justice. They want prisoners in prison, not convicts in the community. The First Minister will be aware that the Scottish Conservatives have consistently appealed for the end of early release. The Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007 replaces the old system of early release with a new system of early release, whereby short-term and long-term prisoners may be released from prison halfway through their sentences. If the First Minister takes steps to end that absurd system for good, the Scottish Conservatives will back him. Will he do that?

We hope to make progress in the direction of sentencing, and I will try to take Annabel Goldie with me for as much of that argument as possible. Regarding the argument that there are currently people in prison despite there being no public utility in having them in prison, I cannot think of anything more dramatic than the statistics from Barlinnie, which were released by HM prisons inspectorate for Scotland. In August 2006, 10 per cent of the population of Barlinnie, one of our major jails, were fine defaulters for sums of less than £300. Given that it costs £700 a week to keep somebody in prison, I cannot believe that there is public utility in holding within the prison system people who clearly and evidently should not be there.

---

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and what issues they will discuss. (S3F-29)

There is no meeting arranged as yet, but I had a friendly and encouraging phone call from the Chancellor of the Exchequer only last Friday. I wish to make it clear that the previous crack about reverse charges was a joke.

That is good, although I still think that it will be a great pity if Gordon Brown is the first Prime Minister to speak to the new Scottish First Minister.

The First Minister recently spoke passionately about consensus. Three parties in the Parliament agree on Edinburgh trams. Last week, the First Minister quoted Donald Dewar. What is the First Minister's view on respect for Parliament's will? Previously, it was expressed by motion S1M-1745, in the first session, which said:

"in keeping with Scotland's democratic tradition … the Scottish Executive"

should

"implement … decisions of the Parliament".

Thirty-four SNP MSPs signed that motion. Alex Salmond signed it on the first day of lodging. All the present Cabinet signed it, as did five other ministers. Even one of the First Minister's special advisers signed it. In fairness, I should say that three of the other signatories were expelled from the SNP before the end of that session. Where does the First Minister now stand on respect for Parliament's will on the Edinburgh trams project?

I do not know whether Nicol Stephen was in the chamber to hear the debate that covered the trams project, when David McLetchie summed up the position in the immortal words of Kenny Dalglish—"mibbes aye, mibbes no." Nicol Stephen will find that many people in the Parliament are more concerned with the project's cost implications and financial rigour than perhaps he and the previous Minister for Transport were.

I remember well the motion to which Nicol Stephen refers. It was about the Scottish fishing community and a tie-up scheme.

Nicol Stephen indicated disagreement.

Well, the motion is before me. It asks for all parliamentary resolutions to be implemented and for the will of Parliament to prevail. It is unfortunate that neither the Scottish Liberal Democrats nor the Scottish Labour Party, which were in government, shared that position.

Consistency is at the heart of my question. [Interruption.]

Order, please.

What does the First Minister make of the stark contrast at the heart of his Government's transport policies? To the undoubted horror of his partners in the Green party, in a 15-word written answer last Friday, his SNP Government confirmed that the M74 extension will

"be complete and open to traffic in 2011."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 1 June 2007; S3W-63.]

My point is that the SNP now treats differently two projects that the previous Scottish Executive agreed. For the SNP on roads, there are no ifs, buts or maybes—the M74 was agreed in 15 words on a wet Friday afternoon—but public transport is different: it faces every impediment, barrier and block. Every organ of government is instructed to backfill a political fix. How does the First Minister explain the difference between how he treats roads and how he treats trams?

I answer as the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change did when he was asked that question in the earlier debate. We will bring to the Parliament as soon as possible as much financial information and as many projects as possible.

I have reached a conclusion in the past few weeks. I now understand why Tavish Scott was anxious not to be in coalition: he did not want to be the transport minister when all the projects come home to roost. I heard—I do not know whether Nicol Stephen did—the appeal for consensus that Tavish Scott made earlier. I would settle for consensus between Tavish Scott and Nicol Stephen.

---

Free School Meals

To ask the First Minister when the Executive will increase the threshold for free school meals in primary and secondary schools to help Scottish families. (S3F-46)

I want Scotland to be healthier and fairer and I want all families and communities to enjoy the benefits of healthier lifestyles. The SNP fully supported the introduction of hungry for success—the initiative to improve school meals. We want more of our poorest children in particular to benefit from free nutritious school meals. The Government is committed to increasing entitlement to free school meals. We will consider when and how to increase the threshold for free school meals as part of the spending review process.

I suggest that the pilot on free school meals that has recently been announced will take too long for the poorest families with older children to be able to benefit from it. The First Minister said that he will work with the Labour Party on issues, and I believe him. Will he consider Labour's proposals to increase the threshold for free school meals to include almost 100,000 children, which would help the most vulnerable working families? Surely, if the SNP is committed to helping families with children and tackling child poverty, it will increase the threshold immediately, because that would help Scottish families. I should add that no legislation is required.

In the interests of consensus, I am sure that Pauline McNeill will accept that the pilot scheme on free school meals from primary 1 to 3 that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning announced is an excellent initiative. I hope that it will be supported by all members of the Parliament and, in turn, I will commit to look closely at the measures that the Labour Party proposes. If those measures are so obvious and excellent, it is kind of strange that the previous Administration did not implement them. Perhaps that is another thing Liberal Democrats stopped it doing.

I remind the First Minister that when I sought to amend the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill at stages 2 and 3 to extend eligibility for free school meals to families on working tax credit and council tax benefit, for example, the Liberal Democrats and Labour opposed the attempt on both occasions. Does he share my delight that consensus is now coming and that he may consider extending eligibility now that we are in government?

I am delighted that Christine Grahame's famous powers of persuasion, which have so often prevailed upon me, are now prevailing even upon the Labour Party.

Will the First Minister tell the Parliament how many children will be involved in the pilots that were recently announced by his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning? I suspect that they will be a lot fewer than the 100,000 proposed in Labour's manifesto.

That is why it is called a pilot project. I hope that people will enthusiastically support the pilot so that, as we return to the project to roll it out across Scotland, there will be real benefits for real pupils in real schools across the country.

---

National Health Service General Practitioner Contract

To ask the First Minister whether the Executive has plans to review the NHS general practitioner contract. (S3F-33)

The general medical services contract is, at present, a United Kingdom contract negotiated on a UK basis on behalf of the four health departments. The contract is kept under review annually. The Scottish Government's key objectives for the contract in the future are to deliver more flexible access for patients and to ensure a fair distribution of resources according to need.

I must first declare an interest, in that my wife is a general practitioner—although I will find out whether she agrees that the question is in her interest only when I return home.

Although general practitioner terms and conditions of service have traditionally been negotiated on a UK basis, I believe that there is a possibility that it can be done on a devolved basis, and I ask that the Government not always take the lead from Westminster. Scottish GPs feel demoralised by having to run their practices more and more according to centrally set targets that ignore important conditions such as chronic skin disease, and their patients are becoming increasingly frustrated because GPs' surgeries now close at 6 pm and it is more difficult to see a GP.

Ask a question, please.

Will the First Minister consider entering into negotiations with Scottish representatives to produce a better deal for Scotland?

I say to Labour members that if somebody comes to the Parliament with expert knowledge that many of us do not have, we might do well to listen occasionally to what they have to say.

The Administration is keen to work in partnership with doctors and national health service boards to ensure greater flexibility in the provision of GP services to the public across Scotland. As we indicated in the SNP manifesto, we will work with doctors and other health providers to deliver more flexible access to health services. I am sure that we can achieve that by working co-operatively with doctors organisations. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing is committed to that partnership.

I wish Mr McKee good luck when he gets home tonight.

In response to the first part of Mr McKee's question, the First Minister appeared to rule out any changes to the contract. Will he confirm that that is a further instalment of his rejection of the Howat report, which was much lauded in the chamber by Mr Swinney, who said that he would give it consideration? It seems to me that the £28 million savings set out in the report that could have been achieved have already been ruled out. Will the First Minister confirm that he has rejected that suggestion?

What I said was that things are being kept under review. I have to say that for a minister in the previous Government to start citing a report that it kept under wraps so that the Parliament could not see it is the most extraordinary development. However, I welcome Ross Finnie's conversion to freedom of information.

Does the First Minister agree that GP funding has never been higher? Indeed the income for GPs has increased by some 40 per cent over the past three years. Does he acknowledge, as he will see from the details, that there are specific Scottish initiatives that the Scottish ministers can fund? How does his position fit with the position made clear by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing yesterday in relation to the maintenance of central services in hospitals? How will the funding be moved to GP and local care, given the budget in our national health service?

Be that as it may, people are looking for more flexibility and more access to their general practitioners.

I welcome the fact that Andy Kerr is looking a bit more cheerful today; he had a pretty greeting face yesterday.

Answer the question!

Order.

Allied to general practitioners' contract, wages and conditions is the out-of-hours service. Although I agree that the review should be of general practitioners first and foremost, does the First Minister agree that it would not be a comprehensive review of primary care services unless it included an up-to-date review of the cost-effectiveness of and patient satisfaction with the helpline?

That is a constructive point. I accept the points that Margo MacDonald makes. Both matters, and others in terms of primary care, have to be considered and reviewed together.

---

Primary Schools (Discipline)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Executive has to improve discipline in primary schools. (S3F-32)

Skelp them.

That is something that I was reserving for the Parliament.

The Scottish Government is committed to helping schools create and maintain a peaceful and positive learning environment, including through reducing class sizes and maximising teacher-pupil contact. We will also produce new guidelines to support schools in dealing with serious disciplinary matters.

I thank the First Minister for his answer and Mrs MacDonald for her excellent aside.

In light of the SNP's manifesto commitment to produce new guidelines to help schools establish much more peaceful working and learning environments, does the First Minister agree that Scottish headteachers should be given the power to search pupils who are suspected of carrying knives and other dangerous weapons, as is already the case in England?

That is a matter that we will discuss with the headteachers and their representatives, because there is not unanimity on that proposal, as Elizabeth Smith well knows. If we were to propose such a measure we would have to have the assent and support of the people we were asking to carry it forward. Elizabeth Smith expressed concern this week about the provision of statistics on the number of violent incidents in Scottish schools. We will look at that matter closely, because there is an area of dissatisfaction with the quality of current statistics. For what we do in policy terms to be statistically led and led by facts and arguments, there must be statistics that confirm that our policies are commensurate with and appropriate to the situation that we face.

As the First Minister mentioned, class sizes are an important aspect of school discipline. Will he make an announcement on whether the new Administration will rigidly enforce the guaranteed maximum of 25 pupils in early primary classes or whether he will allow headteachers flexibility where that suits the needs of pupils and parents in a school?

Unfortunately, the slippage of the previous Administration's promises on class sizes was one of the reasons for the more general disillusionment with its education policies. We will work to fulfil our manifesto commitment to deliver a reduction in class sizes in primary 1 to 3.

That brings us to the end of First Minister's question time.