Plenary, 08 Oct 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, October 8, 2009

Official Report 758KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1935)

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

This week, I have supported the suggestion that the highest salaried public servants should have their pay frozen in 2010-11. I think that the salaries of MSPs and ministers should be frozen next year so that we can lead by example. Does the First Minister agree?

As we know, ministerial salaries have been frozen this year. We did not wait for Iain Gray's advice—we have done it already. MSPs' salaries are a matter for the Parliament. I did not detect too much enthusiasm from Labour members when we made the announcement about ministerial salaries earlier this year.

In all seriousness, I support the view that in tough economic times, those on the higher bands of pay scales should bear the heaviest burden. That is an entirely reasonable point of view. If Iain Gray read his newspapers this week, he will know that that was strongly indicated by the Scottish Government.

Indeed, it was strongly indicated, but it is good to hear it from the First Minister's own mouth.

Three years ago, Alex Salmond did more than strongly indicate—he pledged—that if he was First Minister, he would pay council tax on his first ministerial residence. To fail to do so was to set a bad example. Well, Alex Salmond is First Minister, but he is not paying council tax on Bute house. Why not?

Because when I asked the permanent secretary for advice, which I received on 4 June 2007, he confirmed that for the independent assessor to amend his treatment of Bute house, which had been set in December 2006, there would have to be no business use at all of Bute house, which would have been a bit of a problem for Cabinet meetings; there would have to be physical separation between the accommodation and business areas, which, in a listed building, would have required consent from the National Trust for Scotland; and the Parliament would have to change current legislation just for the property of Bute house. On those grounds, I decided to continue with the practice of paying business rates to City of Edinburgh Council of £22,601, which is some 10 times the amount that would have been paid in council tax, rather than engage in what some members might have described as tax avoidance.

But none of that has changed since the Deputy First Minister described the practice as outrageous. The fact is that the taxpayer pays £22,000 in business rates for Bute house and the occupant pays none of what he promised to. The only tax avoidance that is going on here is the avoidance by the First Minister of paying the tax that he promised to pay. I know that Alex Salmond told voters that he would abolish council tax. Is he doing it one person at a time, starting with himself? [Laughter.]

Order.

Not only does the practice have the happy result of City of Edinburgh Council receiving in business rates 10 times the amount that it would receive in council tax, it has the happy result that no claim is made on the Parliament for accommodation allowance to refund the council tax, which many Labour members do. The position that we have taken is entirely reasonable, given the advice that was given two years ago. Would Iain Gray have stopped holding Cabinet meetings in Bute house, would he have built a dividing wall between the accommodation and the area for business use or would he have sponsored a bill in this Parliament to change the assessor's designation of Bute house?

There may be no claim on the parliamentary allowance scheme, but there is a claim of £22,000 on the Scottish consolidated fund. The Prime Minister and the chancellor managed to make that division so that they pay council tax, so I do not understand why the First Minister cannot do so. The rest of Scotland is facing up to the realities of the recession: they are tightening their belts and paying their way. How does the First Minister think they feel when they read that he has dodged the promise that he made on council tax?

The week before, they read that they—taxpayers—paid for the First Minister's London hotel suites when he already had a London flat, paid for by the taxpayer, too. The newspapers call that hypocrisy, but is it not just contempt for the Scots who are worrying about their jobs, their pay, their mortgages and paying their way?

The Scots who are worried about Labour's recession, their jobs and their mortgages would have expected the Labour Party leader to start engaging in a discussion about unemployment and the recession.

It was a pretty bad idea to introduce the chancellor and Prime Minister into the discussion, because, if I remember correctly, they have claimed additional costs allowance ever since they came into office, despite the fact that they get grace-and-favour residences in London.

I know that this is plan B from Iain Gray, because I agreed with his first question about restraining salaries and pointed out that ministerial salaries are frozen. I did not, because I am modest about these matters, point out that every penny of my MSP salary goes to a charitable trust in the north-east of Scotland. One day Iain Gray or anybody else on the Labour front bench might decide to follow suit.

It is up to Iain Gray to ask the questions. A very short supplementary, Mr Gray.

First Minister, let us start the debate about the economy and our vision for Scotland. On St Andrew's day, I will debate with you. Why not?

Because we debate every Thursday in this Parliament. It is not my fault if Iain Gray cannot think of the right questions—five questions are no better than four questions if he cannot think of the right questions. I look forward to debating with Iain Gray every Thursday in this Parliament, as I have debated with the two previous incumbents of his office. I am on my third Labour leader. The way that Iain Gray is going, I might soon be on my fourth.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1936)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

We were all devastated by the tragic news that two teenage girls from the Good Shepherd Centre in Bishopton took their own lives earlier this week. For me, the tragedy was particularly poignant because Bishopton is my home and I am a former member of the board of management for the centre.

The centre takes in young girls who have a range of hugely complex needs and come from the most challenging backgrounds imaginable. For those girls, the centre is a source of structure, reassurance, education and stability. The staff and the girls at the centre are now having to cope with their grief and shock on top of the immense challenges which for them are an everyday fact of life. The First Minister has said that there will be inquiries. Will he assure me that they will be carried out in a sensitive and compassionate manner, so that the traumatised community of the Good Shepherd Centre is not further upset and the excellent work that it does is not further disrupted?

Yes, I can give that assurance. I thank Annabel Goldie for the way in which she raised the question and I acknowledge her local knowledge of the circumstances as a local member.

Presiding Officer, with your permission, I wish to say that, like the rest of this Parliament, I have been shocked and saddened by the deaths of young Neve Lafferty and Georgia Rowe at the Erskine bridge on Sunday. The death of any young person is a real tragedy, and our thoughts are with the girls' families and friends at this sad time, as well as with the staff at the school, who—as Annabel Goldie said—do such a demanding and important job.

The incident underlines the acute needs and risks presented by a very small number of young people in Scotland. That is why the Scottish Government works with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, care providers and other partners to ensure that support and provision is in place for them.

It would be inappropriate to speculate on the circumstances of the case, as that would pre-empt the investigations that are already being undertaken by the centre, the local authority, Strathclyde Police and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. However, members can be reassured that ministers will work closely with partners to ensure that any lessons that can be learned from the tragedy are learned and that the inquiries will be conducted in a sensitive way.

It will be for Crown counsel, acting on behalf of the Lord Advocate, to determine whether a fatal accident inquiry is required. That will not be determined until the police investigation is complete and the report has been submitted to the procurator fiscal. However, due to the serious nature of the incident, such a decision will be taken as soon as is legally possible.

I thank the First Minister for that full response. Having spoken to people in Bishopton, I know that there is anxiety that there will be a witch hunt that is more concerned with finding someone to blame than with finding a way forward from the tragedy. A chaplain to the centre said to me in a text:

"We only have 11 residential girls and to lose two means we are a community and family in mourning."

Will the First Minister confirm that he will use his best offices in whatever inquiries are proposed or are taking place—and, indeed, if a fatal accident inquiry is mooted—to influence the overall environment of the inquiries so that they are conducted in a sensitive and compassionate way?

As Annabel Goldie knows, I cannot influence the conduct of the inquiries directly. The inquiries will be independent, particularly any fatal accident inquiry. However, at a time like this, given the circumstances of the tragedy, I am sure that all those who are involved will face their responsibilities in a proper and sensitive way.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1937)

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

Tonight, the Tories will vote SNP to keep a £23 million quango that will build not one new school in the current four-year parliamentary session. What will the Conservatives get in return for that loyalty?

People of all political parties should reflect on the fact that, in this session, 100,000 more schoolchildren in Scotland have been taken out of inadequate school accommodation and brought into accommodation of a decent standard. Most people will welcome the fact that, at last, we are addressing the inefficiencies in capital spending that, during the Labour-Liberal years, resulted in overpayments in capital returns to many providers in the public service. The Scottish Futures Trust addresses that issue.

Given the trenchant criticisms that I used to hear at Westminster from the Liberal Democrat benches about public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives, I wonder why the Liberal Democrats never got out of their arrangement with the Labour Party over those eight long, wasted years.

I guess that the answer is that the Tories will not get very much.

What bothers me—and, more important, what bothers children, parents and teachers throughout Scotland—is the two wasted years in which schools have not been commissioned. The First Minister has imposed two years of paralysis. Now, he is relying on Tory votes. Does he not understand that, in exchange for Tories voting SNP, Scotland will get to keep the £23 million quango this year, double its budget next year and put off building new secondary schools until 2013 or 2018? Why will he not concentrate on building new schools instead of new quangos?

I live in hope of a conversion before decision time, but I take it that Tavish Scott intends to support Rhona Brankin's motion at 5 o'clock. The motion suggests that the schools that have been commissioned are PPP legacy schools. That point was made recently in a debate, so I had a look at the number of non-PPP schools that have been commissioned and for which the contracts have been signed since 2007. There are 62 instances of such accommodation. Given the fact that Tavish Scott now has that valuable information—that list of non-PPP legacy schools that have been commissioned by the SNP Government and for which the contracts have been signed—and given the fact that the Liberal Democrats always pay close attention to the facts and, unlike the rest of us, are not affected by political prejudice, will Tavish Scott relent and vote for the SNP amendment and for common sense in Scottish school building?

I will take a constituency question.

Much has been said about the tragic deaths of the two young girls at the Erskine bridge in my constituency. Like Annabel Goldie, I have a strong connection with the Good Shepherd Centre, as I used to work there. Our thoughts, of course, are with the girls' families and friends and with the staff and residents of the Good Shepherd. I will add my support to a fatal accident inquiry, if that is necessary.

There have been three suicides this month from the bridge—indeed, the bridge has a bad history. I impress upon the First Minister the urgent need to increase the height of the barriers along the bridge's walkways. The barriers are scarily low—believe me; I have walked along there many times. Research shows that suicide barriers are a deterrent. I have written to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change along those lines. However, I would like a commitment from the First Minister that he will ensure that, if a decision to increase the height of the barriers is taken, it is implemented speedily, so that there is no delay between the decision being made and action being taken to prevent other such tragic deaths.

Any lessons that are to be learned will be acted on quickly and without delay.

I acknowledge the constituency member's concern, and I repeat my appreciation, which I expressed to Annabel Goldie, of the manner in which the subject has been raised. It is worthy of the Parliament that issues concerning this tragedy are raised in a very responsible way.

I shall look at the correspondence and write to or meet the constituency member, as she wishes, to see whether those lessons can be implemented.

As I stated, the Lord Advocate must determine on a fatal accident inquiry. As Trish Godman will know, one of the great advantages of the FAI system that we have in Scotland is that it can roam widely in investigating the circumstances, and the sheriff or whomever conducts it can make specific recommendations across a range of areas.

I will meet Trish Godman and other constituency members to talk about this issue, if they so choose.

Does the First Minister share my concern at the loss of 100 jobs in my constituency as a result of the decision of Johnston Press to print its titles in Sunderland and in the west of Scotland, without creating any additional jobs in those areas? Will he raise concerns with Johnston Press about the betrayal of its loyal Edinburgh workforce, the severing of the historical connection between The Scotsman and Edinburgh, and the folly of printing the Edinburgh Evening News, with its tight deadlines, at the other end of a busy motorway?

The constituency member has made the point, and I will raise those concerns with Johnston Press. We are concerned about any job losses in Scotland in these difficult times.

---

Drugs

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the problem of illegal drug use. (S3F-1947)

Two new reports, commissioned and published by the Scottish Government, give us the most complete picture ever of Scotland's drug problem. The reports show that there were an estimated 55,283 problem drug users in 2006, which is around 7 per cent more than there were in 2003. That is the worsening problem that our new drugs strategy, outlined in "The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland's Drug Problem", is designed to tackle.

The focus of this Government is on delivery. The early signs are that we are moving in the right direction. Drug seizures by the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency are now at a record level; front-line services are benefiting from an 18 per cent increase in funding since 2006-07; and, for the first time ever, we are developing a national target to improve access to services for problem drug users to help them on their way to recovery.

I encourage the Government to put recovery at the heart of the services that it provides.

I am pleased to be able to welcome a drop in the number of those waiting for 26 weeks for treatment in my home city of Aberdeen, which has fallen from 500 to 117 in the last quarter. That is a dramatic improvement.

Can the First Minister confirm the Government's intention to continue to invest in the drugs strategy, both in the health service and, of course, in policing?

Yes, I can, and we should, as a Parliament, acknowledge that there have been significant improvements in a number of areas in Scotland, not least in the city of Aberdeen.

In June 2009, 117 people had waited more than 26 weeks for an assessment. That is still a high number, but we can compare it with the 622 people who did so in 2007. We welcome that progress, but there is still some way to go in Aberdeen and other parts of Scotland, and we must continue to drive down waiting times if we are to tackle drug abuse effectively.

We have tried—Fergus Ewing has, as Minister for Community Safety, made the most strenuous efforts—to get an all-party consensus on the issue. It was not particularly helpful for Richard Baker to say—on the front page of The Sun, as it happened—that the serious report that was published was an indication of the Government's lack of action, given that the report was for 2006. That was one of the most foolish pieces of politicking on the issue that I have ever seen.

Given the 4 per cent increase in drugs offences last year and the 3 per cent increase in the number of drug misusers in 2008, does the First Minister agree that ministers should give Parliament a further opportunity to debate the drugs strategy? That should include a debate on action on tackling drug offences, in which I am afraid the most recent statistics show that the Scottish Government is not succeeding.

Yes, I think that Parliament should have further opportunities to debate the drugs strategy, but I understand that we may require a wee bit of flexibility and fancy footwork from Richard Baker. I would still like to know why, when a serious report is published that indicates the depth of the problem and gives us the first examination of it, and which is dated 2006, the Labour spokesman holds it up as an indication of Government failure, when it is actually reporting his Government's failure in 2006. The question that people in the Parliament and outside are asking is, "Did Richard Baker realise the date on the report, or does he just do rent-a-quote on every issue, regardless of the subject?"

The enormous financial and social cost of drug abuse to Scotland, which has risen to around 55,000 problem drug users and is costing nearly £3.5 billion a year, will not decrease without access to treatment and support services. Is the First Minister aware that beds are lying empty at Castle Craig hospital in Peeblesshire, which is a world-class rehabilitation facility? Does he agree that that is a hugely unsatisfactory use of resources? Will he agree to take action to address the situation?

I will examine the specific situation and write to the constituency member. I certainly agree that the significant improvements that are taking place throughout the country in reducing the waiting times for assessment are important, and I hope that no local decisions will interfere with that process.

As the First Minister will know, a report this week from the University of Glasgow showed that the NHS Ayrshire and Arran area has the second highest rate of injecting drug use of all the Scottish health board areas, with only NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde experiencing a worse problem. He will also know that there were 40 drug deaths in Ayrshire and Arran last year—the highest number during the past decade. What further steps does the Government propose to take to crack down on those who deal in drugs, in particular the organised criminals who profit so massively from pushing illegal substances?

As I noted in my first answer, drug seizures by the police and enforcement agencies are now at a record level. I am also aware of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's announcement about the organisation of the serious crime division in Scotland, which will help us enormously, particularly in tackling the drugs trade.

As the member will recognise, there is consensus—across most of the Parliament, at least—on the new direction that we are taking in trying to confront the problem. We all recognise that the problem has been generations in the making, and that it will not be solved overnight. I believe that most or us are more comfortable with the direction that we are taking with the anti-drugs strategy than with the direction that was previously taken.

---

Students (Financial Support)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to provide financial support to students from lower-income backgrounds or who have dependent children. (S3F-1948)

Since 2007, as Claire Baker knows, the Government has introduced a range of measures to better support students from lower-income backgrounds and those who have dependent children. We have abolished the graduate endowment fee, which has benefited more than 50,000 graduates and students by more than £2,000 each. We have made available up to £38 million to replace loans with grants for part-time learners, which has benefited up to 20,000 students a year. We have increased the threshold for the non-medical personal helper element of the disabled students allowance by 60 per cent. We have also increased the higher education discretionary funds by £2.4 million or 17 per cent.

Only yesterday—after Claire Baker lodged her question—we announced an additional £30 million of investment in full-time higher education student support for students from lower-income backgrounds and students who have dependent children, which was, of course, the focus of Claire Baker's question.

We have known about the £30 million that the First Minister mentioned for the past two years in the budget. On the details that were published yesterday, as always with the Scottish Government, we find that the devil is in the detail.

Today, however, I want to press the First Minister on bursaries. Does he recognise that reports suggest that almost 20,000 students are still waiting for their bursary support from the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, despite having started their courses? Will he give an assurance that those reports will be fully investigated?

Not only have they been fully investigated, they have been corrected by The Herald, which published a correction yesterday, pointing out that the reports were without foundation. I had assumed that the Labour Party's further and higher education spokesperson would be familiar with the facts, but clearly she missed the correction in the newspaper. I suspect that, in the way of the press, the correction was slightly smaller than the original story, but, nonetheless, I think that Claire Baker should find out the facts before she comes sallying into the chamber with her question.

---

Prisons (Human Rights Cases)

To ask the First Minister how many human rights cases are pending against the Scottish Prison Service from prisoners held in segregation units. (S3F-1942)

Twelve cases relating to periods of detention in segregation are outstanding against the Scottish Prison Service, some of which date from as far back as 2002. However, the Government has closed the legal loophole that the Somerville judgment highlighted so that we do not face a repeat of those circumstances in future. I know that that closing of the loophole was heavily supported by Bill Aitken as determined action, even if he forgot to mention it when he responded on the issue a couple of days ago.

In the spirit of generosity, I fully acknowledge that the loophole was closed—with the co-operation of the entire Parliament, as I remember. However, is the situation not that the Scottish taxpayer is being ripped off by some of Scotland's least deserving citizens? When we add the outstanding liabilities to the £11 million that has already been spent on the slopping-out cases, the Scottish taxpayer must be looking askance. Is it not time for the Scottish Government, in conjunction with the Parliament, to review the operation of the European convention on human rights as it applies to Scotland and, after that review, to approach the United Kingdom Government with a view to changing some of the aspects?

Of course, the Scotland Act 1998 determines that we must follow the European convention on human rights, so the proposal would require primary legislation. I see Bill Aitken nodding in response to the idea of primary legislation to amend that act. As he probably knows, I would like to amend it with primary legislation in a whole range of ways.

I am sure that none of us wants to pay money to convicted criminals, but the settlement was made on compelling economic grounds. Settling the 20 cases, some of which went back seven years, cost about £40,000 in compensation. Continuing to defend them would have cost £1 million in legal costs. We did not accept that the periods of segregation were unlawful. The offer to settle was made purely on economic grounds. I do not see that there was any alternative to taking that action.

I am glad that Bill Aitken has found it in his heart to recognise that the Government took decisive action to close the Somerville loophole so that we do not face the same circumstances in future. I happily welcome and acknowledge that generosity.

I am grateful to the First Minister for his explanation of the basis of the settlement, which will be helpful to the chamber. However, might any cases that are still to come through the system render the Scottish Prison Service vulnerable? I know from professional experience how these things work, and economic settlements, although understandable, sometimes tend to raise expectations in future cases.

As I indicated in my first answer, 12 segregation cases are outstanding in the system. However, the legislative action taken by this Government and Parliament to close the loophole will prevent all such cases from being pursued in future.

Bill Aitken has reminded me that the legislation had all-party support in the Parliament. I do not think, however, that on that occasion the Liberal Democrats received any benefit from supporting the Government. Nevertheless, I welcome that support, and we should hold it up as an example of the way in which the Scottish Parliament can take determined action to ensure that, in future, we are not faced with such circumstances with regard to segregation or, indeed, other issues. We really should be capable of saying that we took the right legislative step to prevent money being paid to convicted criminals in future.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—