Plenary, 11 Feb 2010

Meeting date: Thursday, February 11, 2010

Official Report 725KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2203)

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

In paragraph 7.7 of the Scottish ministerial code, it says:

"in some cases it may not be appropriate for a Minister to provide a reference, even as an MSP."

What about the case of a criminal who stole £80,000 of benefits and who had previously been convicted of stealing people's pension and benefit cheques while running their post office? Does the First Minister think that someone who is guilty of that crime should go to prison?

Iain Gray should realise that a First Minister commenting on a live case before sentencing would be in breach of a range of things, including parliamentary procedure, ministerial procedure and every other procedure. If I or Iain Gray was the MSP, of course we would have an absolute obligation—[Interruption]—an absolute obligation to take on a case, as specified in the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament, in paragraph 8.1.1.

There are times when members cannot do anything to help their constituents. Sometimes there is conflict with other cases and when people come to it they represent other constituents; sometimes there is political disagreement. However, every MSP in the Parliament should have a duty of care to their constituents, and if they can help they should try to help. That is how a real constituency MSP like Nicola Sturgeon serves her constituents.

It is a matter of judgment. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that I would not have written such a letter for a constituent who was guilty of such a repeat crime. Is any MSP willing to say that they would have written the same letter for the same man having committed the same crime? Put your hands up! [Interruption.]

Order.

The First Minister and his deputy seem to be on their own on this one. I ask a general question: where does the First Minister draw the line? What crime does someone have to commit not to receive a character reference from the First Minister or his deputy?

Nicola Sturgeon was elected as the constituency MSP for Govan. Iain Gray lost his seat as a constituency MSP.

We have a range of examples of people representing their constituents. When Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he prepared a character reference for one of his constituents. That case is not live before the courts. When sentencing, Lord Cowie said:

"This would normally result in a custodial sentence but in all the circumstances, and taking account of all the references before me, I have decided to make a community service order".

It is the right of members of Parliament to represent their constituents, through their legal representatives, to a court. It is the obligation of the court then to dispense sentence. That is the law and that is the obligation of constituency members of Parliament.

For all the people who are watching at home, let us be very clear. No member of this Parliament is bound to vouch for the character of just anyone. The code of conduct for MSPs says that members

"should consider issues on their merits, taking account of the views of others."

What about decent, law-abiding Scots? What about the pensioners and families who were left with nothing when their cheques were stolen? Did Nicola Sturgeon consider their views when she wrote the letter?

The code of conduct says, in paragraph 8.1.1—let us quote it exactly—that

"It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached"

by a constituent. It goes on to specify the circumstances in which a member would not take on a case. The circumstances are that a constituent's request could conflict with other interests or perhaps with "existing casework"—a conflict of interest in constituencies.

There is example after example of members of Parliament and MSPs making representations to court. I mentioned Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. What about Paul Goodman, the Conservative MP for Wycombe and the shadow minister for communities and local government, who wrote to Reading Crown Court in September last year on behalf of three men who were accused of attacking another man in High Wycombe? What about Joe Benton, the Labour MP for Bootle, who wrote to Liverpool Crown Court in December 2008 on behalf of Christopher Brown, a constituent who was charged with firearm offences after selling guns online? [Interruption.]

Order.

Or what about John McDonnell—a fine Labour MP in my estimation—who wrote to Isleworth Crown Court in September 2006 in defence of two constituents who were accused of using false passports? Members of Parliament have to do their best for their constituents. They should do it without fear or favour and not because they condone their actions, not because they like or dislike them, and not because the constituent votes for, or does not vote for, them but because they have a duty of care.

Order.

If members do not understand that obligation on members of Parliament, they should not be representing constituents on any matter.

When I ask for order, I must get it. As I have said before, I allow as much flexibility as possible. When I ask for order, please give it to me.

The conflict of interests that lies at the core of this question is between the interests of the criminal and those of the victims of crime. My constituents will judge me on which side of those interests I lie. I spent yesterday standing up for the victims of knife crime; Nicola Sturgeon spent yesterday standing up for a criminal. That is how bad her judgment is, but this is now about the First Minister's judgment. Whose side is he on? I give him one last chance: will he back Nicola Sturgeon or sack her?

I admire, like the people of Scotland and her constituents do, Nicola Sturgeon's work as a constituency member of Parliament. She is a fantastic Deputy First Minister of Scotland and she has my 110 per cent support.

For the avoidance of doubt, the conflict is actually specified in the code of conduct. I would have thought that Iain Gray would have some mastery of the code of conduct after all the comments that he has made on it in recent days. The code of conduct refers to action that would

"represent a conflict of interest with existing casework".

Conflict with another case in the constituency is specified as the conflict.

The rules for and obligations of a member of the Parliament are laid down and Nicola Sturgeon has followed those rules and obligations. However, the heart of the issue is about more than that; it is about whether people can rely on their constituency member of Parliament to represent them, without fear or favour, whether they like them or dislike them and whether or not they vote for the member. Do we or do we not recognise an obligation to do our best for our constituents?

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon's obligation is to do her best for her constituents. The court's obligation is to dispense sentence. I hope that we never get to the day when Iain Gray decides what sentences should or should not be dispensed by the courts of Scotland. [Interruption.]

Order. [Interruption.] Order! I repeat that when I ask for order, I expect to get it. No matter whom I ask it from, I expect the same response.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2204)

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

The events of the past 24 hours are extremely worrying and they go to the heart of the conduct of this Government. The Deputy First Minister is under serious scrutiny. I am not calling for her resignation at this stage—I believe that such a call is premature—but many questions need to be answered, and must be answered if Ms Sturgeon is to retain the confidence of this Parliament. If necessary, she should come before this Parliament and make a statement.

In the meantime, clarification is overdue. Is this a constituency issue or a Government issue? The Government's chief spin doctor—at taxpayers' expense—was sent out to defend Ms Sturgeon. Surely that makes it a Government issue. Did Ms Sturgeon seek or receive advice from Government officials on this matter? Is she now receiving advice from Government officials? Did Government officials do checks on Mr Rauf on behalf of Ms Sturgeon?

Will the First Minister now insist that Ms Sturgeon make a statement to this Parliament?

I appreciate the way in which Annabel Goldie has raised the matter. It is entirely a constituency matter for Nicola Sturgeon as the MSP for Glasgow Govan. The reason for the Government representatives putting forward comments on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon was of course the call for her resignation as Deputy First Minister of Scotland. If somebody, however ill-advisedly, calls for the resignation of a minister because of their constituency duties—which sounds to me a remarkable thing to do—of course it is perfectly proper for that minister to be defended by Government spokespeople. Now that that has been clarified, I hope that Annabel Goldie will accept that at least that part is quite clear and capable of defence and no misunderstanding.

Given that the First Minister has now confirmed that this is an issue for the Government, there are questions for the Government. MSPs are not, as Ms Sturgeon has claimed, "duty-bound" or, as the First Minister has averred today, under "absolute obligation" to make representations to a court for a constituent. An elected politician is not an officer of the court making a plea in mitigation. We all have discretion as to whether and how to get involved. Indeed, who asked Ms Sturgeon to get involved?

The First Minister did not answer Mr Gray's question. Will he confirm that paragraph 7.7 of the ministerial code has not been breached?

Do Mr Rauf or his associates have any connections with the Scottish National Party or the independence movement?

Does the First Minister genuinely believe that serial fraud, two convictions and 779 fake signatures can all be dismissed as, to quote Ms Sturgeon, "mistakes"?

That is why a statement must be made to this Parliament.

I clarify the point again. Nicola Sturgeon dealt with this matter as the constituency MSP for Glasgow Govan. The only Government involvement has been after the calls for her resignation as Deputy First Minister of Scotland. Not just the Government spokespeople's reaction but my reaction has been to do two things: to defend the rights and obligations of constituency members of Parliament as I see them—hence the questions to me today—and to say absolutely that I am 100 per cent behind Nicola Sturgeon as the Deputy First Minister of Scotland.

Now that I have clarified that point, I know that Annabel Goldie will see that it is perfectly reasonable for a Government minister to act as a constituency MSP and it is perfectly reasonable for spokespeople for the Government to defend Government ministers when they are attacked by other parties and there are calls for their resignation. It would be an extraordinary situation if I were not allowed to dismiss calls from Iain Gray for Nicola Sturgeon's resignation.

On the specific points that Annabel Goldie made, I know of no contact or anything else—apart from with Nicola Sturgeon as a constituency MSP—between the individual in question and the Scottish National Party. I could—but I will not strain the tolerance of the Parliament—list occasions, of which I have so many, on which Labour members of Parliament have defended people where there were contacts with the political party. On the specific point that Annabel Goldie raised, I repeat that I know of no contact, apart from with Nicola Sturgeon in the constituency MSP role, between the gentleman and the Scottish National Party. I hope that Annabel Goldie will accept that, now that I have made it clear.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2205)

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

People outside Parliament do not understand how the First Minister and ministers have let all this happen. Yet again, will the First Minister tell the chamber where he draws the judgment line? Is there anyone who can walk through an SNP minister's door and not get the letter that they want? How bad does it have to be before the SNP says no?

The specification is in the code of conduct. Let me read it again, so that even Tavish Scott understands it fully:

"Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and … regional MSPs … It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached".

The exceptions that are recognised in the code apply to specific things such as conflict of political beliefs or other constituents' interests. The process of sending, on behalf of constituents, letters that will be used by their legal representatives is well known. Indeed, Gerry Brown, one of Scotland's most prominent solicitor advocates, who presumably knows a bit about the issue, described it on the radio this morning as "reasonably common".

I can give countless examples of MPs who have taken that role in serving their constituents. For example, when Gordon Brown made a submission on behalf of somebody who was charged with having grown £10,000 worth of cannabis at his home, I do not believe that he did so because he condoned the growing of cannabis. He did so because he was that person's constituency representative. The whole basis of the duty of care is that, as a constituency representative, an MP or MSP has to represent people, whether or not they agree with them, condone them—whatever their politics are. That is at the heart of representative politics.

That was another shifty answer from the First Minister. He is trying to shift the blame on to someone else. The key word in the code is "expected". Mr Salmond would do well to look closely at it.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has called for new laws under which criminal assets can be confiscated. The cabinet secretary has said that such criminals are "parasites" who live

"off the back of law abiding folk".

Why did none of that occur to the Deputy First Minister when—I assume—she was sitting opposite one of them? The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has said of such criminals:

"we're going to take them on and we're going to take them down."

Does the Deputy First Minister simply take down whatever someone says and send it to the judge? Why does the First Minister have one minister who talks tough and another who begs for leniency?

I would have thought that Tavish Scott would welcome the huge success of the asset campaign that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is pursuing.

The issue is clear: someone who operates as a constituency MSP does their best for their constituents without fear or favour. There are countless precedents for this and similar cases. Is it the case that all the people whom I have listed should be called upon to resign, as Iain Gray suggests? Are we going to merge totally the role of a constituency MSP and that of a Government minister, or will we retain at the heart of our system of politics that, when a constituent asks for help—and if it is possible for that help to be given—the MSP should give it? If an MSP does not understand that, regardless of popularity, they should not be a constituency member of Parliament. The hard stuff is part of the job, as well as everything else.

I will take a constituency question from Cathy Jamieson.

The First Minister is aware of the murders in my constituency of Diane Fallon and her 10-year-old daughter, Holly: a tragedy that has shocked the whole community. Given that the person who was convicted of the murders was a known sex offender with a previous conviction, does the First Minister agree that, although an internal inquiry by the police is welcome as a first step, it is not a wholly adequate response? Will he ensure that an independent inquiry is held, with the findings reported to Parliament and made public? Will he also ensure that immediate steps are taken to extend the pilot scheme under which communities are given access to information about sex offenders who live in their community?

I thank Cathy Jamieson for the way in which she raised the constituency issue and welcome her welcome for the police inquiry. At this stage, we should see what progress the inquiry makes. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice will keep on review whether another inquiry is necessary, given the findings of the current inquiry. The member makes a strong point, which was discussed at the Cabinet on Tuesday, about whether there may be a strong case for accelerating the pilot study in Tayside, to see whether aspects of the early examination of that work might have been relevant to the case that we are discussing and might give more security to the people of Scotland generally.

---

Primary Care Medical Services

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will respond to the increasing public demand for the availability of primary care medical services in the evenings and at weekends. (S3F-2210)

The Government is committed to ensuring that high-quality primary medical care is available whenever and wherever people need it. National health service boards, working with multidisciplinary teams and NHS 24, are well equipped to continue to provide a high-quality service. We recognise the fundamental part that is played by general practitioners.

We have invested record sums in primary medical services—up by 2.7 per cent over the past three years—and are taking through the Parliament the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill, which safeguards GPs' role. The number of GPs has increased by 14 per cent since 2004. We have invested £7.4 million to extend access to GP practices across Scotland, meaning that more than two thirds of practices now offer their patients appointments at times more flexible to their needs. However, we agree with the British Medical Association that we cannot return to the days when individual GPs, as opposed to the health service, were forced to provide cover 24/7.

I welcome the Government's commitment to high-quality primary medical care and investment in that. Does the First Minister agree that one of the strengths of such care in the past has been the continuity that it offers? Although I accept that a 24-hour individual GP commitment is neither desirable nor achievable, the retreat from practices providing services in the evening or at weekends that has taken place since 2004, which means that it is impossible for some people to be seen routinely without missing work, has led to a fragmentation of delivery of primary care that is not in the interests of patients, the national health service or the wider economy. Should not the issue be given further attention?

I recognise Ian McKee's expertise in this area and his concern. The matter is kept constantly under review. Equally, I hope that the member recognises that the extension of access that has been taking place is intended precisely to enable people to see their general practitioner outwith normal working hours, so that that is not disruptive of work patterns. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has pushed through a substantial advance that will be welcomed and which we would like to see applied more widely across Scotland.

Does the First Minister agree with the recommendation in the BMA's recent report that the NHS 24 should focus on improving its core business of call triage and integration with local services, rather than planning further service expansion?

NHS 24 is doing that. Its performance has been improving and is exceptionally good. In my estimation, the recent threat of a flu pandemic demonstrated the worth and resilience of NHS 24 across Scotland. The issues that Ross Finnie raises are being taken on board and considered, but he should acknowledge that NHS 24, after a period of strong initial criticism following its launch, has made substantial improvements and is recording a first-class performance.

The First Minister will recognise that increasing public demand on primary medical services may have an impact on funding. Does he agree with the Deputy First Minister, who said yesterday that there is record funding for the NHS in the coming year, or does he agree with another member of the health and wellbeing ministerial team, one Alex Neil, who on the same day expressed in the Wishaw press his fury at cuts to health services? Who is right?

The figures are quite clear. The health service has been protected in the Government's budget, as witnessed by examples in Glasgow such as the new Southern General hospital, which is the largest capital project in the history of the national health service, and built with public money. Even Jackie Baillie should welcome that commitment from this Government not just to the west of Scotland and the health service, but to the great city of Glasgow.

---

Local Authorities (Resources)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the survey by Unison that predicts that local authorities are facing a £305 million drop in income and the loss of 3,000 jobs over the next year. (S3F-2217)

The response is that local government, along with the rest of the public sector in Scotland, has to cope with over £500 million of cuts in the Scottish budget imposed by Johann Lamont's colleagues at Westminster for 2010-11. As Johann Lamont well knows, we are, in contrast, increasing revenue funding to councils by £325 million in 2010-11 on a like-for-like basis exactly to help local authorities protect front-line services and play their part in the economic recovery. She will remember that, under the previous Administration, local government's share of the Scottish budget was in steady decline year after year. We are now delivering on our commitment to increase local government's share of the overall budget year on year. It will go up from 33.4 per cent in the last budget set by the Labour Party in 2007-08, to 34.1 per cent in 2010-11.

I am sure that the First Minister would wish to acknowledge the authority of Unison, given that it represents workers who are committed to delivering critical services in our communities, rather than dismissing it, as his answer suggests.

What steps has the First Minister taken to meet Unison to discuss its concerns and, in particular, its troubling findings that care assistants who support vulnerable people in their own homes will be the first to lose their jobs? The First Minister clearly shares his Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth's complacent view that the Scottish Government is funding local services with, as I think he said yesterday, some style. If he does, will he explain why local authorities, the unions, voluntary organisations and worried families in our communities all report, and are fearful of, significant cuts at the local level? Are they making it up? Can it be that they are all out of step, bar the First Minister? Will he respond to those serious concerns rather than dismiss them?

Certainly, if Johann Lamont wants to have a look back at my previous answer, she will find that, far from dismissing them, I acknowledged that local government, with the rest of the public sector, has to cope with cuts that are being imposed by her colleagues at Westminster.

Johann Lamont asked about meetings with Unison. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has met Unison, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing met Unison on Tuesday. They are fully involved in allowing Unison to make its representations, as we would expect.

Johann Lamont's question implies a fundamental misunderstanding of the Government's position and, indeed, of simple economics. We have just heard a comment from Jackie Baillie that, if I interpreted it correctly, suggested that the health service should have more money. We have just had comments from Johann Lamont that, if I interpret them correctly, suggest that local government should have more money. We know as an absolute fact that the share of expenditure from Westminster to Scotland is declining, so at some stage will the financial geniuses on the Labour seats tell us, if the budget is going down by £500 million, how is it that, in their looking-glass world, every service, depending on who asks the question, can get more money? Far from dismissing complaints, our message to the people of Scotland is to look at the Westminster cutbacks and get this nation control over its resources, because that is the only solution for Scottish public services.

---

Wind Turbines

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of potential locations for offshore wind turbine manufacturing and construction operations, in light of the recent report by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. (S3F-2214)

As Iain Smith will acknowledge, Scotland has massive renewables potential, with an estimated quarter of the European Union's offshore wind resource, as well as a quarter of the tidal resource and 10 per cent of the wave resource. We are therefore well placed to make Scotland the green energy powerhouse of Europe, creating tens of thousands of jobs and generating billions in revenue for the economy. It is therefore vital that we put in place the energy infrastructure that will not just support the industry itself, but enable manufacturing and construction to be carried through in Scotland. That is exactly the challenge that the Scottish Government has set itself and has set the whole country—hence the report from Scottish Enterprise, to which the member refers.

We all agree that Scotland has the potential to be a world leader in low-carbon energy. Our port structure, company base and skilled workforce are critical to our success.

Today, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, pledged to create 57,000 jobs by investing £400 million to upgrade shipyards—

Who?

Order.

That was to ensure the production of offshore wind turbines.

In last week's report, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise identified 11 key ports, including the Fife energy park—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the member ask his question.

Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise identified 11 key ports requiring investment, including the Fife energy park in Methil, so that we can fulfil that potential. How will the Government take forward those recommendations to ensure that Scotland can maximise the economic benefits of its renewables potential?

I thank Iain Smith for that follow-up question, but point out that the report from Scottish Enterprise and the actions from the Government are not two distinct things. The report from Scottish Enterprise was commissioned by the energy advisory board, which I chair—indeed, it was at my suggestion. To identify the potential for manufacturing sites, it is necessary first to identify the sites. We have a comprehensive, rational renewables infrastructure plan, and I recommend that every member of the Parliament read stage 1 of it.

Iain Smith suggests that the salvation of the Scottish renewables industry and the fulfilment of its potential will be dependent on Nick Clegg becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I do not, for a second, decry good policies from whatever source, but I would like to offer just a bit more assurance to the renewables industries of Scotland—instead of taking on what might be considered a rather long-term debt. I suggest that the member gets behind the Scottish Government's policy, which is paving the way for offshore renewables.

Already, 29 significant onshore renewable applications have been consented to during our term of office. Without breaking the cross-party consensus on the matter, I point out that that is a considerable number more—many times more, in fact—than those that were consented to by our predecessors.

The green energy powerhouse of Europe vision is not something for the hereafter; it is for the here and now. Get behind the Government's actions to bring it forward.

That concludes questions to the First Minister.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In his replies to Iain Gray and Tavish Scott, the First Minister quoted from the code of conduct for MSPs in relation to how we deal with constituency matters. He missed out a key sentence. The code clearly says:

"it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent's case in certain circumstances".

And what is the point of order, Mr Smith?

I am coming to it. The First Minister missed out this sentence. The code continues:

"for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action".

My point of order is this: can you confirm that that is what the code of conduct says and, secondly, that it is for individual MSPs to use their own judgment to determine what is an "inappropriate action"?

I can confirm that, but it is not a point of order for me to consider.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—