Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, June 9, 2011

Official Report 1079KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00036)

Later today, I will meet the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss matters of importance to the people of Scotland.

The First Minister is famous for blaming someone else. It used to be us; now it is the Tories. Councils, too, are always good for blaming. After last week’s exchange on care services, it was good to hear the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy taking personal responsibility for the standard of those services. Can the First Minister tell us what the Government’s plan is for residents of Southern Cross care homes if that company collapses?

I listened to the Deputy First Minister this very morning as she laid out the various contingencies that the Government and local authorities have in place to deal with that difficult situation. The prime issue is to ensure continuity of care for the residents of Southern Cross care homes. I hope that all members in the chamber can see that that is a sensible initiative for the Government to take.

I also listened to the Deputy First Minister this morning, and I heard her say that the presumption of any contingency plan would be continuity of care. That is very welcome.

I was also reflecting on the First Minister’s criticism last week of the private provision of care. If the Southern Cross care homes face closure, surely the simplest and best plan would be for local authorities to be able to take over their running to ensure continuity of care. The First Minister could give certainty to concerned residents and relatives right now by committing to that and promising councils the resources to do it if they need those resources. Will he do that?

The certainty and reassurance for relatives is that there will be continuity of care for all people who are affected by the Southern Cross situation. The presumption will be that they will stay in their present care homes. Local authority control of the homes is one of a range of initiatives that are being considered. Certainty on the plan comes from the fact that the Government, acting in conjunction with our local authority partners, will ensure continuity of care for people who are affected by the Southern Cross situation. That declaration to the chamber is substantially more important than making what is a matter of huge concern to thousands of people just a political interchange. The certainty from the Parliament is that we will fulfil our obligations to vulnerable people.

On the contrary, the First Minister must understand that the certainty that those residents and relatives need is that there will be a way—which will be funded—to have continuity of care. One of the responses from a council to the questionnaire that was circulated said that it could not identify alternative providers and it could not take over the running of the care homes in its area without additional funding from the Government. Certainty would come from a commitment to provide that funding.

Yesterday, Southern Cross announced cuts of maybe 300 or 400 staff in Scotland. Even if Southern Cross survives, its homes will need careful and constant inspection to ensure that care is not compromised by those staff cuts over the next 18 months. Last week I asked the First Minister to reverse his 25 per cent cut in the inspectorate that is tasked with those inspections and the news of the Southern Cross staff cuts makes that even more important. For the sake of certainty, will the First Minister reinstate the care inspectorate’s budget?

Last week, I explained the generality to Iain Gray and read him the figures for the inspections; that should have given him assurance. I point out to Iain Gray that all Southern Cross care homes have been inspected at least twice in the past 12 months and more often than that where required. It is simply wrong and misleading, and not worthy of him, to suggest that our care service inspection regime is not working effectively—it is working effectively and will continue to work effectively, and the standards that we require will be ensured in Southern Cross care homes, regardless of whether they are run by Southern Cross, or any other provider or council in Scotland.

Those figures are from the old inspection regime. The new regulator has a new inspection regime, whereby those care homes that have previously received a good grade will be inspected only every two years. As I explained to the First Minister last week, 50 staff have gone from the regulator in the past year and perhaps as many as 55 more will go in the next year. Some of those staff are the very people who are required to make the inspections. The loss of 400 jobs from the biggest private sector provider of care in Scotland is a change to the situation that the regulator’s staff have to deal with. One way in which we could give certainty would be to reverse those cuts.

The health secretary has called the matter a sacred duty and a personal crusade and has accepted that the buck stops with her, but all of us have to put our money where our mouth is. We should underwrite the cost of local authorities stepping in, should Southern Cross fail, and we should reverse the cuts in the inspectorate so that it can ensure that the quality of care is maintained in the light of the Southern Cross cuts. Why will the First Minister not give families that reassurance?

Because the reassurance for families is that there will be continuity of care across Scotland—that is the reassurance.

It is a matter of fact—I point this out to Iain Gray, as he seems to be struggling with some of the facts—that the inspection regime, of course, involves three agencies that have been merged into one, and that the figures that he cites are not for next year but cover the next three years. I would have thought that the whole chamber would welcome the personal leadership that the Deputy First Minister is showing on the issue. The fact that she has made a personal commitment on it is to be welcomed; that is what is called leading from the front. I hope that Iain Gray starts to recognise that.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00026)

I met the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday and I am meeting him again today, as part of my new, two-meeting strategy. If I do not get the answer that I want in the first meeting, I organise another one.

It takes two to tango—let us hope that it is a mutual pleasure.

Seven months ago in the chamber, the First Minister was asked about the death of a lady in Tomintoul. She died from a heart attack. She did not receive prompt medical attention, even though there was an ambulance 800yd away. It did not attend because the crew were on a tea break. At that time, the First Minister promised that

“investigations will be thorough and will come to a conclusion, which will be spelled out to the chamber.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2010; c 30038.]

What were the conclusions? Will he now spell them out to the chamber? What lessons have been learned?

Those initiatives are still under consideration, but I can arrange for the health secretary to write to Annabel Goldie and give her the full detail of the improvements and changes that are under consideration.

That was seven months ago. Tragically, in April, the same thing happened again. This time, a little boy from Crieff, aged three, died. He did not receive prompt medical attention, even though there was an ambulance only 10 minutes away. Again, the crew were on a tea break. Apparently, the ambulance service diverts calls away from any crew who are on a tea break, so I accept that a crew may be unaware of a local emergency, but serious injury, critical illness and imminent death do not wait for tea breaks. That situation is completely unacceptable and it must change. An emergency service must cope with emergencies.

In the past seven months, we have seen two tragedies. No MSP wants to contemplate having to raise the issue again, so can the First Minister assure us all that this time something will be done?

I assure Annabel Goldie that the matter is being treated very seriously. The health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, will be quite happy to meet her to discuss matters further. The facts of the Tomintoul case are well known and have been investigated and reported on.

On the second case, as the member rightly indicates, a number of issues are still to be clarified about information that was made available to staff. She made that point herself. The health secretary will be happy to meet Annabel Goldie and explain some of the complications that are emerging from the necessary changes. She has my assurance that changes will be made and the health secretary will be able to give her the full detail of the aspects of change that require agreement, not imposition.

The first constituency question is from Alex Fergusson.

On 22 June, the court of the University of Glasgow will consider a report that recommends the phasing out of the liberal arts degree that is currently taught at the Crichton campus in Dumfries. Inevitably, this throws some doubt on the university’s long-term commitment to the campus. I am sure that the First Minister will recall his Government intervening in 2007 to ensure that the University of Glasgow remained an integral part of the Crichton campus.

Given the widespread concern among staff, students and others at the hurried and unsatisfactory nature of the consultation that has just taken place, and indeed, the lack of any acknowledgement by the university of the many suggestions made by staff and students to address the concerns, will the First Minister instruct again his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to intervene to ensure that any decision taken on this crucial matter is delayed until a proper and thorough consultation has been held, and further and full consideration of other initiatives that have been proposed to secure the future of the course has been undertaken?

I welcome Alex Fergusson to his new role. I can tell him that representations have already been made by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and we will continue to pursue the point. He rightly refers to 2007, when he was in the chair and could not comment in the chamber. If I remember rightly, I think that it was David Mundell who said then that it would take a miracle to save Crichton campus. That miracle was carried to effect by the then education secretary. We hope that, once again, representations will move things in a more positive direction for the Crichton campus.

The First Minister will be aware of the announcement by Trinity Mirror to axe 90 jobs at the Daily Record and Sunday Mail newspapers in my constituency. Does he share my concerns about these further attacks on the newspaper industry and, in particular, on the investigative journalism of those two newspapers? I further ask the First Minister whether he or other ministers will meet me and others to discuss this serious situation about the newspaper industry.

Yes, I will organise meetings for the constituency member with Mr Swinney. I know that the partnership action for continuing employment team has already been activated to help the employees concerned.

We accept that there are pressures on the newspaper industry, but it seems that an extraordinary level of redundancy is being contemplated for the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail. Although I have not always seen eye to eye with the Daily Record’s editorial view, nonetheless it is a hugely important Scottish institution. The coverage that it has given to Scottish news and current affairs has been an important part of the fabric of Scotland. The whole chamber will want to see that quality of coverage maintained. I share Sandra White’s concern. I will arrange the meeting with the minister. I hope I speak for the whole chamber when I say that we want a vital Daily Record and Sunday Mail to be able to comment comprehensively on the affairs of this country.

---

Corporation Tax

3. To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has for corporation tax rates. (S4F-00025)

The Scottish Government is committed to improving and strengthening the powers of the Scotland Bill, including the devolution of corporation tax. The Scottish Government will publish a consultation paper in the summer on the opportunities and benefits of establishing a more competitive corporation tax system in Scotland.

Twenty three years ago, a cocky, newly elected member of Parliament for Banff and Buchan intervened on the then Tory chancellor, Nigel Lawson, during his budget speech when he announced a cut to 25 per cent in the rate of corporation tax. Alex Salmond was suspended from the House of Commons for shouting:

“This is an obscenity. The chancellor cannot do this ... This budget is an obscenity.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 May 1988; Vol 129, c 1008.]

Why was corporation tax of 25 per cent an obscenity then, but the First Minister’s proposal for a cut in corporation tax is a great idea now? Will he tell the Deputy Prime Minister about his conversion to Con-Dem fiscal ideology when he has a cup of tea with him later this afternoon?

I will first correct the record, because I was there—I was there for a time before I got expelled. Incidentally, the vast majority, although not all, of the Labour Party earnestly supported my expulsion and supported the Tory chancellor. I was not actually protesting about corporation tax; it was the cut on higher-rate income tax and, of course, the imposition of the poll tax in Scotland that I was protesting about—and I am proud to have done so.

I accept that the member might be in some difficulty, because reporting is not always as it should be. Reporting on this issue has been very strange. I read, for example:

“a new row between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive erupted last night after the First Minister promised to fight for lower business taxes north of the border if Northern Ireland won a special deal from the Treasury. The First Minister told Holyrood yesterday that if the chancellor bowed to pressure to cut corporation tax in the province he would argue for the same for Scotland.”

I despair at how these things are always interpreted as fights between Holyrood and Westminster. The report goes on:

“But last night Government sources in London attacked Mr McConnell over the remark, saying that he had ‘blundered’ in giving ground to the nationalist case for fiscal autonomy.”

That report was from 17 November 2006. When a Labour First Minister stood up for competitive industry in Scotland, the Labour Party was in government. When the Labour back benchers attack that policy, Labour is reduced to a rump of an opposition. Maybe there is a connection.

Does the First Minister agree that if we are going to attract business and jobs to Scotland, we need a whole package to do so, which includes good education, health and taxation systems? Does he agree with Jim McColl of Clyde Blowers Capital, whose company works around the world in many taxation systems and who says that it has no problem operating in those different systems?

Yes, I agree with Jim McColl. On this issue, I find myself in agreement with Jack McConnell, Wendy Alexander and a range of other highly intelligent people.

We should have a look at the substantial work that has been done in Northern Ireland on the issue and the estimates that, over a period of time, a reduction in corporation tax could bring 58,000 more jobs to the province and would be self-sustaining and self-financing over a period of time. That serious work has been carried out by the economic advisory group in Northern Ireland. I hope that the consultation document will get similar serious research in terms of establishing the position and hopes for Scotland. I know that the Labour Party will be foremost in submitting its evidence, once it decides what its policy is.

---

Unpaid Carers

4. To ask the First Minister what additional support the Scottish Government will provide to unpaid carers over the next five years. (S4F-00031)

We have allocated £5 million this year to health boards to support carers and young carers. We are giving the voluntary sector £3 million for the vital short breaks that carers need. To meet our manifesto commitments, we plan to invest an additional £300 million over the next four years to improve care for the elderly. At least 20 per cent of that will go towards helping carers.

I very much welcome the First Minister’s response. As national carers week approaches, I am sure that the First Minister will want to put on record his recognition of the selfless contribution of Scotland’s carers and the fact that the great work done by the many carer organisations, such as the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and many others throughout Scotland, is absolutely invaluable. However, the First Minister will be aware that the impact and burden of planned increases in energy prices announced just this week will no doubt be much greater on caring families throughout Scotland. How does the First Minister and his Government intend to help those families?

The member is right to highlight the vital contribution of carers to our society and the important work undertaken by carer organisations nationally and locally. The manifesto on which we just fought the election set out a series of measures to support Scotland’s carers, including a commitment to extend the energy assistance package to people on carers allowance. Under the current circumstance, I have asked officials to make that a priority for delivery. On top of the existing support available, that will allow an additional 7,000 homes to access assistance. Carers living in energy-inefficient houses will be able to receive heating systems and complex insulation through the energy assistance package. In the circumstances of thumping fuel bills that will affect huge numbers of people throughout society, I think we all agree that it is a particular priority to ensure that carers have the protection that we can offer.

I join Humza Yousaf in supporting carers and acknowledging the enormous part that they play in Scottish society. Will the First Minister guarantee that the additional funding for respite will be additional to the existing system? The previous promise of 10,000 weeks’ respite did not result in any increase despite, I am sure, the Government’s best intentions. Will he also ensure that all carers have emergency plans in place in case anything serious befalls them? At the carers’ national hustings that were held during the election, only 5 per cent of the carers in the audience had such a plan in place. It is particularly important that we provide carers with the security and knowledge of such a plan.

I am interested to hear that. I will make sure that that point is examined and I will give Richard Simpson a considered response. It is a worrying situation that he reports to the chamber. I will make sure that he receives a considered response on how we can improve the situation substantially.

---

Council Tax Freeze

5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government remains confident in the costings for a five-year council tax freeze set out in the Scottish National Party 2011 election manifesto. (S4F-00038)

Yes. The Scottish Government will fully fund the council tax freeze for the remainder of this parliamentary session. We will work with our local government partners, through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, to ensure that that happens.

Although it is clear that the council tax freeze is a popular policy, time will tell whether the First Minister is correct or whether others, such as Crawford Beveridge, are right in saying that his policy is unsustainable, unaffordable and detrimental to the upkeep of local government services in the long run.

The First Minister claims that his proposal for a local income tax is also popular, but he wants to keep everything from the taxpayer, in spite of the Scottish Information Commissioner’s ruling that Dr Andrew Goudie’s report should be made public. Will the First Minister stop wasting tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on his own super-injunction to keep his information from them? Will he publish his economic adviser’s analysis of the cost of LIT? What lurid headlines is he afraid of and what does the First Minister have to hide?

I understand that the information has already been published in The Daily Telegraph. I suppose that Michael McMahon is not necessarily a reader of The Daily Telegraph, although, given the trend of the Labour Party, perhaps it will be only a matter of time.

I am surprised that Michael McMahon seems to be reverting to the Labour Party policy of being against the council tax freeze. I have a distinct memory of that policy being in transition as we approached election day. If I remember correctly, Labour members were against the council tax freeze; then they were against it but did not want any big rises in bills. By the time that we got to the election, they were in favour of the council tax freeze, although the Labour manifesto miscalculated what was required to fund the freeze. I presume that Michael McMahon is speaking for the new Labour policy of again being against the council tax freeze. At a time when people around the country face massive increases in not just fuel bills, but the price of just about every good in every shop, it seems poor judgment on the part of the Labour Party to say that it believes that yet another bill should increase and press down on householders throughout Scotland.

In funding a five-year council tax freeze, what assumptions has the First Minister made about inflation?

The annual cost of £70 million assumes a 3 per cent increase. That is a fair assumption to make given that, even in its days of wanting to increase the council tax, the Labour Party suggested increases of less than 3 per cent. Perhaps the comparison in which the member would be most interested is with the council tax freeze that is being pursued south of the border by his colleagues and compatriots in the Conservative Party and their Liberal allies, which assumes a 2.5 per cent increase. The compensation that Scottish councils get through the full funding of the council tax freeze by central Government is worth an extra 0.5 per cent. I know that the member will be writing to the local government minister in England today, urging him to play fair with English councils.

Lib Dem-led Highland Council has made much play about the problems caused for it by the council tax freeze. Despite that, it has just announced an underspend last year of £7 million. The council has said that it needs to cut 344 classroom assistants in order to meet its budget this year. It will make a final decision on 23 June. Does the First Minister agree that Highland Council should use some of that £7 million underspend to fund those vital classroom assistant posts for the next year so that a proper review of their role can be undertaken?

That seems a reasonable point for the local member to make. I am sure that people in the Highlands will have heard that point made, about both the underspend and the threat to classroom assistants.

---

Airbases

6. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the future of Scotland’s airbases, given the potential impact on jobs in the relevant local communities. (S4F-00039)

The Scottish Government has for some months been in discussions with Ministry of Defence officials about the issue. I have also had a number of discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence. The Scottish Government’s role in those discussions has been to protect Scottish interests by making the compelling strategic and economic case for retaining RAF Leuchars and RAF Lossiemouth, and putting the case for relocating the maximum number of personnel currently based in Germany to Scotland.

Those discussions have been treated as confidential because many of the personnel involved are currently on active service in Afghanistan and elsewhere and because no decisions have yet been made by the United Kingdom Government. The Scottish Government is in the process of preparing a further and final submission to the Ministry of Defence, again setting out in detail the case for retaining the two RAF bases and for the transfer of the maximum number of army personnel from Germany. That will be submitted next week, so that it can be taken into account by the Secretary of State for Defence and the UK Government as they reach their final decisions on those matters.

I am sure that the First Minister is fully aware of the remarks made this week by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for Defence, at the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, where he admitted that over the past decade substantially bigger reductions were made in military personnel in Scotland, proportionally, than in other parts of the UK.

Does the First Minister agree that that supports the case for the UK Government not to close two thirds of Scotland’s airbases?

Yes, I do. I should point out that the centre of the case that we have been making to the UK Government is on strategic grounds and on the assets and advantages of Lossiemouth and Leuchars as RAF bases. However, we have also made the point that in an estate and defence review, and a base review that is proposing the closure of some 20 per cent of RAF bases throughout the UK, it would seem highly unreasonable to propose the closure of 66 per cent of the Scottish bases.

Since the First Minister aspires for Scotland to be an independent country, responsible for its own defence outwith the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, would he care to tell us exactly what he envisages would be an appropriate size for the Scottish royal air force? How many planes and squadrons would it have and how many airbases would it need?

I can draw David McLetchie’s attention to some good international comparisons. I do so because at one of the meetings that I had with Liam Fox, he had just come back from talking about Nordic defence co-operation, particularly as far as airbases were concerned. Norway has seven airbases and Denmark has three. Norway’s population is slightly smaller than that of Scotland and Denmark’s is roughly equivalent to Scotland’s. None of the countries of that size seem to have only one airbase. I am sure that as Mr McLetchie casts his experienced eye around the canvas of similarly populated states throughout Europe, he will agree with me that two airbases in Scotland would be better than one.

12:29 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—