Plenary, 09 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, March 9, 2006

Official Report 755KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2155)

I hope to meet the Prime Minister again soon to discuss a range of issues. In particular, I expect to discuss his support for Scotland's bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth games in Glasgow. I hope that this weekend I take to Melbourne the whole chamber's support for that bid. Indeed, I will be delighted to pass on to the athletes who are representing us at the games the support of everyone in the chamber for their efforts over the next fortnight.

I assure the First Minister that he has the Scottish National Party's full support in putting forward in Melbourne the case for Glasgow to host the Commonwealth games.

I remind the First Minister that, at a press briefing on Monday, he said that it took nearly five years for the Government to pay Shirley McKie £750,000 in compensation because

"The compensation requested was originally much higher, and that was why we defended the action."

Does he now accept that what he said on Monday was simply untrue?

I do not think that that is the correct link to make between a particular question and answer from the press briefing on Monday. It is the case that, in the discussions on the settlement and the court case over the years, the McKie family were looking for a significantly higher amount of money. It is absolutely their right to do so, and I do not dismiss it at all. However, it was also right that, in such negotiations, we looked after the public purse and ensured that the eventual settlement was just not only to Shirley McKie but to the taxpayers of Scotland.

Several newspapers have precisely quoted the First Minister as saying that the claim was "originally … higher" than £750,000. However, I have court documents that prove that what he said on Monday was untrue. They show that, over the four years between day one of Shirley McKie's court action and last September, she was claiming £750,000—which is exactly the amount that was eventually paid to her.

Does the First Minister accept that the Government's decision to fight the case not only needlessly put Shirley McKie through the wringer for five years but resulted in hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money being wasted on legal costs? The question that the First Minister must answer is why. Now that we know that the explanation that he gave on Monday was false, will he please tell the chamber the real reason why it took the Executive so long to settle the case?

First of all, I should say that Ms Sturgeon is not accurate. The original claim was for £750,000 plus interest, which is more than £750,000 for any of us who understand money or numbers. However, more fundamental issues are at stake—[Interruption.]

Order. We have to hear what the First Minister is saying.

I know that the SNP does not like facts, but facts are important in any discussion. I do not think that that particular fact, although it is a fact, is central to the discussion. What is important is that, when it became clear last year that a settlement was appropriate, the Minister for Justice took the right steps to secure a settlement that was fair to Ms McKie and was also fair to the public purse. That move towards a settlement resulted in a letter from Ms McKie's father to the Minister for Justice thanking her for her approach and welcoming the steps that she was taking. That was a positive indication from the McKie family that they welcomed the approach at the time. The Minister for Justice took the right steps to settle, in the interests of the public purse and of Shirley McKie. The family having accepted that the mistake made by the Scottish Criminal Record Office was without malice, and the Executive having accepted that we have a responsibility to ensure that Ms McKie is compensated for what she has gone through, now is the time to move on.

Is not there an obligation on the First Minister to tell the public the truth? I have a copy of the original court document and the claim was clearly for £750,000. I think that the First Minister should reflect that in the public statements that he makes. Is not it the case that Monday was not the first time that the First Minister has misinformed the public about the McKie case? On 9 February, he told Parliament that everyone concerned accepted that an honest mistake had been made, and that is just not true, is it? Is not it the case that, as we saw on the BBC "Frontline Scotland" programme, no one in fact accepts that it was an honest mistake? The SCRO experts still do not accept that it was a mistake, and the McKie family and a long list of fingerprint experts do not accept that it was an honest one. Who exactly was the First Minister talking about when he said on 9 February that everyone accepted that it was an honest mistake?

We all know that the settlement was, from our perspective, a fair and just settlement for Ms McKie and a just settlement for the public purse. In accepting that settlement and in accepting that the original mistake was without malice, the McKie family took an important position, and that is reflected in the statements that have been made. It is important to recognise not only that we now have a settlement, but that never in the course of recent weeks, in any of the statements from the nationalists, who have tried to politicise what is essentially a legal debate, have we had one question about any of the recommendations from the two independent inquiries that took place. Those inquiries produced recommendations about the future of the fingerprint service, all of which were accepted and implemented. At no time in recent weeks has Ms Sturgeon, Mr Neil or any other SNP member who is involved in the debate accepted that fact or even questioned whether it is true.

What is important is the integrity of the work of the fingerprint service and of the justice system. Those who are now responsible for the fingerprint service are acting in the public interest to ensure that the service has improved and will improve further as a result of the changes that were outlined by the Minister for Justice just two weeks ago.

I suggest that it is the integrity of the Scottish Executive and of the justice system that it is on the line.

I accept that there have been reforms to the SCRO, but we cannot know whether those reforms will sort out what went wrong in the Shirley McKie case, because we do not know what went wrong in that case. I refer the First Minister to a comment by Derek Ogg QC—one of the many non-political advocates of a public inquiry—who says that we need to

"shine a light on how we got here and make sure that where we're going is not beset with the same traps."

Is it not time that the First Minister took his head out of the sand and took some decisive action to restore confidence in the Scottish justice system?

This is a democratically elected Parliament. Last night, it voted and expressed a clear opinion on behalf of the people of Scotland, whom we represent. I hope that Ms Sturgeon will note that fact, despite her continuing efforts to undermine yesterday's vote, which showed clearly what the will of the Parliament is.

I do not accept that Ms Sturgeon shows an interest in the work of the fingerprint service because at no time in the parliamentary debate, in the questions that followed the statements from the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate in recent weeks or at First Minister's question time has she questioned the recommendations that were made by the independent reports into the fingerprint service or the implementation of those recommendations since then. The fundamental point is the action that has been taken. The action that has been taken was based on independent reports from independent investigations. That action has been implemented and, as a result of that, we can now move forward.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2156)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will still, in my absence, discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

I hope that drug abuse and, in particular, the use of methadone will be high up the agenda. This is not an issue on which I wish to pick a fight. I have no doubt that the First Minister is as saddened as I am at recent tragic events. My desire has only ever been to shift the debate in a more constructive direction. In that spirit, does the First Minister accept that, to deal with the problems that are associated with methadone, we need to establish the extent of those problems and, therefore, need more information? How many people are on methadone, how long have they been on it and how many of them are looking after children at home?

I will come back to Annabel Goldie's central point in a second, because I welcome the fact that she has asked the question and raised an important issue for the Parliament. It should be of great concern to others, as it is to her and me.

The current figures for methadone prescription in Scotland are about 19,200. In my view—and, I believe, in Annabel Goldie's—we do not have enough information about the individuals who are prescribed methadone and the plans that they are on to end up, eventually, with a drugs-free lifestyle, but we are expanding the Scottish drug misuse database precisely to collect that information and to ensure that practice is more consistent throughout Scotland. That information should be available soon and will give us a chance to apply guidelines more consistently and have a more consistent objective in each individual case.

Over recent weeks, Annabel Goldie has made positive contributions on other areas such as the provision of rehabilitation services and the national data that we hold on them. I hope that, in all of that, she is not suggesting that there is no place for methadone prescriptions in the system. Her leader clearly believes that there is, and I agree with him that we need a flexible approach. However, I believe that Annabel Goldie is genuine in her approach and I hope that, in addition to participating in this exchange, she is willing to meet the Minister for Justice and her deputy soon to try to bring some of the parties together on the issue and to provide a way forward that we can all agree and see through to successful implementation.

I thank the First Minister for his response. We have made singular progress today, which I appreciate, and I make it clear that my party has never said that there is no place for methadone.

Establishing the extent of the problem is only the first step, because it must be crystal clear that everything that we do is geared towards helping people to end their addiction to drugs, which must mean telling them where they can go for help.

That brings me to the First Minister's response on rehabilitation facilities. In England and Wales, there is a central directory of rehabilitation facilities. Will the First Minister give me a commitment to provide such a directory for Scotland?

I certainly want to do that. I now have figures for the number of establishments that offer such services as well as for the number of individual beds that can be made available. Those beds are in the system in Scotland. Sometimes—correctly—they are used for drug rehabilitation, and they are also used for alcohol rehabilitation and other purposes. As I have said in the chamber on many previous occasions, I believe that there are not enough rehabilitation services in Scotland. There are not enough residential places, and there are certainly not enough services directed at people adopting a drug-free lifestyle at the end of their rehabilitation.

We have allocated additional resources and we are expanding the number of places. I hope that we can go forward. I believe that the cross-party approach that I have just suggested might help us to ensure a consistency of approach over several years. In the meantime, I would be happy to secure a level of detail on the matter for Annabel Goldie as part of this continuing discussion. I am sure that, in the weeks ahead, we will be able to outline the plans that are available in some areas of Scotland to expand the number of places.

I am grateful to the First Minister and, once again, I wish to say that I think that progress is being made. The key point about this issue was made by Professor Neil McKeganey. He said that people with money can afford choice and that having that choice means that they tend not to use methadone to end their addiction. Although I am partially reassured by what the First Minister has said to me in response to my previous question, I point out that, in the absence of clarification on facilities, the capacity within those facilities and unused capacity in Scotland, we have a two-tier system. Is it not about time that we committed ourselves to ending that two-tier system, under which the well-off go to residential rehab while the masses make do with methadone? Is it not time that we began to give everyone the choice of getting effective help to get off drugs?

I am certain that there will be times in the course of this debate when it will be right for us to make debating points on behalf of our different parties and for policy choices to be made in front of the electorate and debated in the Parliament. I am also certain that there are times when, if at all possible—and as was perhaps pioneered by the former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth—we should rise above party politics on the issue and try to move forward together.

The number of admissions in Scotland was 3,902 at the latest count, I am told. There are problems with the system, and I entirely agree with Annabel Goldie: it is unacceptable that, while some people can buy their way to a rehabilitation place, other people, despite indicating an interest, do not have the necessary resources available. That is the case for the vast majority of problem drug users in Scotland. In many cases, they have to remain on a waiting list.

Some members will perhaps have heard this story before. Not that long ago, I met a family in the north-east of Scotland who had agreed with their daughter that she would go into rehabilitation. The daughter, having made that brave decision, was told that a rehabilitation place would take a year to become available. I regard that as absolutely unacceptable. The outcome was that the parents had to help her to get drugs so that she could keep her lifestyle stable while she was waiting. That is an entirely unacceptable situation in any part of Scotland, and it is one that I am determined to do something about. I hope that, in building on the changes that we have made over recent years, and if we come together, we can provide more permanent solutions on which all parties can agree.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2164)

I meet the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly to discuss a range of issues, which are all of importance to Scotland.

With energy issues so high up the media and political agendas, does the First Minister believe that small-scale micro-renewable energy for our homes and businesses can play a part in providing our future energy needs? Is his Executive committed to supporting the micro-renewables industry?

Yes, and yes.

I was hoping that the First Minister might expand a little bit on his support. I would like to have suggested that his words were not being backed up by action.

The First Minister might not be aware that the Scottish community and household renewables initiative is oversubscribed and has run out of cash. It gets a mere, paltry £2.2 million a year, which is miserable compared with the multimillion pound support that the nuclear industry receives from the Government. Will the First Minister commit his Executive to increasing support for micro-power? What is his message to those who want it but cannot get it and to the businesses that are—rightly—alarmed that the market is not getting the boost that it really needs to take off?

I am happy to expand on my earlier lengthy answer. I believe that it is important for the Government to support and encourage micro-renewables within the public sector, within businesses and within individual households. I strongly support further development in that area. I am delighted that the current programme is oversubscribed, which I think shows an increasing interest and demand in Scotland, which can only be healthy not just for the industry but for our environment in the years to come. What I suppose is a change in attitudes and an increasing interest in this area in Scotland is a good thing, which I am sure that the Green party would acknowledge and support.

That raises a budget issue for us, which I know that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and his deputy are considering. I am absolutely certain that if we can increase the resources in years to come, we will do so, but I would rather leave a statement on that to them.

---

Methadone

To ask the First Minister whether, following the tragic death of Derek Doran, the Scottish Executive has any plans to review arrangements for the dispensing of methadone. (S2F-2169)

First, on behalf of everyone, I express my sympathy to everyone affected by that tragic death. I hope that members will acknowledge that I cannot comment on the circumstances of the case, given that it is the subject of investigations.

Protection of the most vulnerable children in our society is our absolute priority and must be the absolute priority of Government. Events over recent weeks, including this and other shocking cases, reinforce my determination to ensure that children in drug-taking households are properly protected, safeguarded and supported.

The 1999 guidelines on the clinical management of drugs misuse and dependence, which cover the prescription of methadone, are about to be updated on a United Kingdom-wide basis. However, that updating will take some time to complete. Therefore, I have asked for an immediate review of the current guidelines here in Scotland and of their implementation locally.

This is the second tragic death in East Lothian caused by methadone prescribed for somebody else. Does the First Minister accept that the real and fatal risk from what is supposed to be a cure for drug addiction is just not tolerable? Will he set two specific objectives for the review? The first is to ensure that the supply of prescription methadone is absolutely secure without the risk of it being sold on or used to spike people's drinks and without the risk of the kind of tragic accident that appears to have happened at Elphinstone. Secondly, does he agree that the objective must be the cure of addiction, not just the stabilisation of addicts on methadone?

Absolutely. In these situations, we have a duty to strike an appropriate balance between the medical judgment that is required of professionals, independent of politicians, and the need for Government to give clear guidelines and to ensure consistent implementation of them wherever possible. Although I cannot comment on the particular case until the current investigations are complete—we do not know what happened—I believe that there is a need to ensure that where methadone is being prescribed to be taken outside the pharmacy or surgery, there is a clear reason and justification for that.

Secondly, I believe that it is absolutely critical that where methadone or any other dangerous drug has been prescribed to be taken at home, or away from supervision, appropriate safety measures are in place to ensure that children—who can die not just from methadone but from a number of other things—are safe and secure. I also believe that a fundamental plank of our drugs policy must be not only to catch dealers, seize drugs and provide rehabilitation services, but to lead people to drug-free lifestyles. That must be our central objective in the discussions that I mentioned earlier to Annabel Goldie, on which I am happy to receive comments from any other member.

Does the First Minister agree that we should build on the inquiry into methadone use and widen its work by establishing a standing commission on the misuse of substances, including alcohol? We cannot judge our policies on drugs and alcohol without seeing them in the same light. We need a genuinely radical approach, because we have tried the same mixture of policies for more than 20 years—since the time when I was chair of the Scottish Drugs Forum—but nothing has improved. Surely we can say that the policies have failed and that we need better alternative ones.

We need to be careful about being too comprehensive in describing it as failure. A number of people who work in various parts of the public and voluntary sectors in Scotland have made a difference in the area in recent years. We now know more about the problem in our society than ever before and—certainly in relation to the supply of drugs in Scotland—we are more effective than ever before. However, we cannot deal only with the supply of drugs; we must deal with demand as well.

I am not sure that a standing commission is the right answer, but I am certain that, in the discussions that we have, we should be willing to consider all suggestions. In doing that, we should build upon our strategies on both drugs and alcohol and strengthen them rather than simply dismiss them. I hope that, if we can agree on that as a basis, the work that Annabel Goldie and Margo MacDonald have done on the issue over a long period will be input to those discussions.

---

Steel Commission

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive supports the recommendations made in the Steel commission report. (S2F-2172)

The Executive does not have a formal view on the report, which is an interesting contribution to the debate.

The First Minister will be aware of the growing consensus that the Scottish Parliament requires significant additional powers. Is he part of that consensus?

Actually, what we have is a growing consensus that the SNP has "lost its way", to quote the comment that its former leader Gordon Wilson made this week. We know that, despite the occasional clever question from the nationalists, they do not support further powers for the Scottish Parliament; they support the replacement of the Parliament with an independent Scotland. I welcome the interesting debate about the Parliament's powers, but we must have an honest debate, with each party stating its position honestly and clearly. It is dishonest of the SNP to come to the debate claiming that it wants more devolved powers for Scotland when what it really wants is a separate, independent Scotland. It should stop doing that.

As a member of the Steel commission, I ask the First Minister whether he accepts its conclusion that we should explicitly reject independence and full fiscal autonomy, which the commission said would be a Trojan horse to independence. However, does the First Minister agree that there is a case for more devolution of both legislative and fiscal powers to the Scottish Parliament? Further devolution has taken place since 1999—for example, in relation to rail—and would be consistent with the view that was expressed when the Scottish Parliament was set up, that devolution is a process and not an event.

Like Jeremy Purvis, I welcome the growing consensus in the Parliament and in Scotland that independence is not the right solution for Scotland. I hope that that will be demonstrated again in next year's elections, as it was last year and in the two previous years. It is important that we use our powers effectively for the benefit of the people of Scotland, but the Parliament should also be a place for debate about the future of Scotland. I welcome the debate on that and other matters, but I want it to be an open and honest debate. I respect the Liberal Democrats' position of support for a federal United Kingdom as part of that debate and I will be happy to contribute to a debate on that position. As soon as we get a little more honesty from the SNP, I will be happy to take part in its debate too.

---

Scottish Enterprise

To ask the First Minister what the outcome has been of recent discussions with Scottish Enterprise regarding its current funding position. (S2F-2162)

Scottish Enterprise has succeeded in encouraging more demand for its services from companies that want to grow in Scotland. Therefore, there are more projects to fund this year than resources allow, which means that Scottish Enterprise is prioritising projects. The prioritisation process will ensure that Scottish Enterprise moves forward with a focus on high-quality projects.

The First Minister is aware that the most recent debacle at Scottish Enterprise has destroyed business confidence in the organisation and further damaged its reputation in Scotland and worldwide for sound financial management. How will he restore confidence in Scottish Enterprise nationally and internationally?

What would damage the Scottish business community's confidence in Scottish Enterprise most would be the abolition of or a cut in the services of Scottish Enterprise, which the Tories have consistently proposed in recent years. Yet again, I ask for consistency from our opponents. If they believe that Scottish Enterprise should be cut back and that we should do less to support business, they should say so when they ask a question about it.

From a variety of meetings with businesses large and small in recent months, I believe that Scottish Enterprise's leadership enjoys more confidence than it has for a long time. The strategy of prioritising national industries and ensuring a Scottish focus that is designed to grow our economy in the sectors in which we can be more successful is the right direction for Scottish Enterprise. However, that must be balanced by local input, local judgment and local participation. A job is in hand in Scottish Enterprise and in discussion with ministers to achieve the right balance between national and local expenditure and between national and local decision making.

In a country of 5 million people that faces an increasingly competitive global market, if we do not have a clear national focus on the sectors in which we can grow and do not give those priority in the years ahead, we will fail and fall behind.

We started two and a half minutes late, so I will allow a last question from Alex Neil.

I agree with the First Minister's last statement.

Is it true that £30 million of Scottish Enterprise's budget for next year is to be transferred to this year's budget? If so, what are the implications for next year's projects and programmes?

The specific amounts are under discussion between the enterprise ministers and Scottish Enterprise. However, I say clearly—as I said in my earlier answer—that one piece of good news in Scotland's economy is that more projects have been proposed than the budget allows for, so Scottish Enterprise has the chance to choose the highest-quality projects. That is good for Scottish Enterprise and for businesses in Scotland. I agree entirely that it will be important to examine the implications of that for next year and I am sure that the details will become clearer in the weeks ahead.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—