Plenary, 11 Jun 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, June 11, 2009

Official Report 824KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1764)

A range of activities to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. However, I will find time to congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the fact that there are now 17,048 police officers working in Scotland. Although there was some scepticism in the Labour Party about such a number being reached, I know that Iain Gray will welcome that.

Eight months ago, Labour called for specific action to help Scottish families who face repossession of their homes. In England and Wales, Labour introduced a duty on courts and lenders to make repossession absolutely the last resort but, for eight months, the First Minister and his deputy have refused to give Scots the same protection. Only a few weeks ago, a complacent Nicola Sturgeon said:

"I simply don't accept the proposition that homeowners in Scotland are any more vulnerable to repossession than homeowners in other parts of the UK."

Will the First Minister admit that his deputy was wrong when she said that?

Nicola Sturgeon established the repossessions group to advise ministers and to ensure that Scottish home owners and families have the best possible protection. I find it extraordinary that, when Nicola Sturgeon has accepted the recommendation of the group that she established and has bolstered the protection for Scottish families, the Labour Party does not think that that is something to be welcomed and encouraged. It should welcome that, as it should welcome every other scheme that has been introduced by the Government, many of which—I will read out a list, if Iain Gray wants—are substantially in advance of anything that has been done south of the border.

The repossessions group has concluded that Nicola Sturgeon was wrong; that is why it has made the recommendations that it has made. It has been eight months since Labour called for those measures. In only half that time, 500 families in Glasgow alone have lived through the fear and anxiety of a repossession case in court. That is not scaremongering—that is fact.

Behind every repossession, there is a real-life story of lives turned inside out, children uprooted and their education disrupted, and couples struggling to stay together. There are now almost 9,000 families in Scotland in temporary accommodation, which is 11 per cent more than last year. In our newspapers, we see house auctions booming. How many of the properties for auction were family homes? Why has it taken the First Minister and his deputy eight months to act?

I will correct Iain Gray on a few things. What happened south of the border was a pre-action protocol. He will be familiar with the words of district judge Robert Jordan, the chairman of the Civil Justice Council's housing and land committee, who drafted the protocol. In a press release in October, he said:

"The protocol does not change the courts' limited powers to deal with these cases."

What has been recommended by the group that was set up by Nicola Sturgeon is a change in legislation that will give Scottish families better protection. I am sure that that will be welcomed across the chamber.

In that atmosphere of cross-party unity, I will resist pointing out that families throughout the country would not be facing repossession if it were not for the manifest failures of the Labour Government at Westminster.

It is true that, on the letters page of today's Herald, Nicola Sturgeon finally promises to take some action. I am glad that the lady was for turning, but she has not turned far enough. The letter next to hers, from Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre, explains exactly what is needed: free representation for those facing repossession or eviction and changes to the rules of the mortgage-to-rent scheme to make it work. Mr Dailly describes what could be

"the best prevention of homelessness service in the world."

That would be something to be proud of. Will the First Minister promise to take those measures in addition to the ones that have been promised by Nicola Sturgeon?

As Iain Gray well knows, we have introduced a range of measures to improve the housing position in Scotland, including a new generation of council house building, as opposed to the total of six houses that were built under the previous Labour Administration.

Iain Gray says that we should have the best housing legislation in the world, and I accept that that has been a long-term aspiration of his. In fact, he mentioned it in his leadership campaign last August—he said that his party had introduced the

"the best homelessness legislation in the world, but we didn't build the housing to make it work".

The aspiration of this Government is not only to have the best housing legislation in the world but to build the homes to make it effective.

I do not know why the First Minister insists on quoting my words back to me. Yes I said it and yes I meant it, but the fact is that we built more social rented houses than he is building. That was still not enough, but it was more. [Interruption.]

Order.

I am sorry that the First Minister will not see fit to take the best possible measures, which Mike Dailly has suggested, but I am glad that he is now committed to changing the law to give families in Scotland more protection when they are faced with repossession. However, eight months of procrastination means that he has not left enough time to change the law before the end of the current parliamentary term. We can argue about the figures, but every day that we delay means that more Scottish families will lose their homes. I do not want that, and—putting party politics aside—I do not believe that the First Minister wants that either. I want to help.

If the First Minister will task his civil servants with preparing the amendments today, Labour members will come back during the summer recess to vote the law through as soon as possible so that we do not have to wait until September. Will SNP members do the same?

We will move expeditiously, and I welcome the Labour Party's commitment to assist with that legislation—a commitment that I am sure will be reflected among members on all sides of the chamber.

I am not surprised that Iain Gray says that he does not want to argue about the numbers, because I have the numbers here: it is an incontestable fact that, in terms of local authority and social landlord housing, more social housing is being built under this Government than in any year of the previous Labour Administration.

Iain Gray did not at any stage in his line of questioning or his criticism of the Government accept in any sense that we have just had elections in Scotland—and I understand why. He quoted Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre, but what about the people of Govan who voted last week in the European elections? I know that Iain Gray might have been too busy wondering why the people of East Lothian voted in the way that they did, but the people of Govan gave a resounding vote of confidence to this Government, because we build the houses in Scotland.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1765)

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

There are currently almost 12,500 people in Scotland who have not paid one penny of their fines, and the people of Scotland are currently owed £8 million by fine defaulters. Equally alarmingly, the consistent rate at which the problem is escalating will mean that by the end of the Scottish National Party Government's term in office the taxpayer will be owed approximately £30 million. That does not even take into account the SNP's soft-touch-Scotland approach, which will of course mean more fines. Does the First Minister think that that level of unpaid fines is acceptable? What is he doing about it?

A range of measures are being introduced to assist in the uptake and payment of fines. I point out to Annabel Goldie, as I have done before, that although I do not think that the current rates are satisfactory they are rather better than the rates for the payment of fines under the previous Conservative Administration.

I cannot accept Annabel Goldie's general criticism of the position of the judiciary and the legal position in Scotland. She of all people should be welcoming the record numbers of police in Scotland today; she of all people should be welcoming the fact that we have the lowest rate of recorded crime for a quarter of a century; and she of all people should be recognising the Crown Office's substantial successes in pursuing some difficult prosecutions. The fact that in all these areas Scotland's justice system is working effectively should be welcomed by members in all parts of the chamber.

If the First Minister were to be fined for every occasion he did not answer a question, all our fiscal problems would be resolved in an instant.

The figures show an explosion in unpaid fines over the past two years, and the Government's response has been to send out more than 57,000 warning letters and issue nearly 4,500 court citations and more than 14,000 enforcement orders. Instead of having this vast bureaucracy not collect money at vast expense to the taxpayer, why does the Government not get the money in by deducting fines directly from earnings and benefits? After all, fines cannot be some sort of voluntary, optional IOU to the taxpayer.

I wonder whether Annabel Goldie is fully familiar with the action that has been taken. We introduced fines enforcement officers in March 2008 as a deliberate policy measure to deal with previous low payment rates. The enforcement sanctions are working; indeed, we are accelerating their use. Already more than 45,000 enforcement orders, more than 3,000 benefit deduction orders and almost 600 earnings arrestment orders have been granted or issued by the courts. If the member is familiar with those facts, why has she not mentioned them and welcomed the substantial action that has been taken to deal with the problem that she has identified?

Of course, if Annabel Goldie contests any of those facts, I will be delighted to debate the issue next week or any suitable occasion. However, given that those are the facts and that that action is being taken, does she not welcome such moves to confront and defeat the problem that she has identified?

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1766)

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

Does the First Minister recognise the serious impact that the loss of Setanta income could have on Scottish football clubs? For some, it could mean the end. Setanta's deal is worth £13.5 million a year to the Scottish Premier League and, for some smaller clubs, the income from television represents more than 60 per cent of their turnover. It means the difference between being a Premier League football club and bankruptcy. What engagement has the Scottish Government had on this important issue?

I am quite certain that, when I meet the chief executive of the Scottish Football Association this afternoon, the issue will be discussed.

Like every football fan in Scotland, I have been following and am extremely concerned by this story, but it is not immediately apparent to me that a Government intervention during the current commercial negotiations will be effective. What the Government has done to support the SFA and Scotland's other football organisations is well documented, including, along with Willie Haughey, being part of the sponsorship of this year's Scottish cup and distributing proceeds of crime money to a variety of football training schemes and development work at grass-roots level. If Tavish Scott can see any way for the Government to intervene effectively in this matter, I will certainly consider it and discuss it with the football authorities.

I am sure that the First Minister is aware that the Office of Communications, the broadcasting regulator, is about to release a report on the pay TV market which was undertaken following complaints from Setanta and others about BSkyB's near monopoly. If there is no market, the monopoly pays peanuts, which is bad news for football clubs, players and, above all, fans. If Setanta folds in Scotland, there will be a Dutch auction for the TV rights and the current £13.5 income to Scottish football could drop below £5 million. If that is not bad enough, Clydesdale Bank's sponsorship could also be reviewed if the TV cameras are switched off. If Setanta goes bust, will the Government get involved in making the case for the Scottish Premier League to be broadcast on free-to-air TV? Is such a move not better than pay TV having the rights to the game but using its monopoly to pay next to nothing?

As Tavish Scott knows, I have ventilated my opinions about Scottish international matches being shown on terrestrial television—I think that that is a right and entitlement that people should have. However, I am not immediately aware of how moving the football rights from pay-to-view to free-to-air television will enhance or improve the clubs' financial position.

The reason why the games are on pay-to-view television in the first place is to enhance the clubs' financial position. The issue is of serious import and the concerns are legitimate. I am happy to have discussions and, if Tavish Scott wants to present to me a substantial idea on how to improve the Scottish Premier League's negotiating position or on how to improve the workings of the market to effect substantial revenue into the Scottish market, I commit myself to discussing it with the football authorities. If there is a role for Government in the matter and we can identify it, the Government will not be found wanting in kicking that ball into the net.

Several members want to ask important constituency questions. I ask members to keep the questions and answers as brief as possible, so that I can get as many of the questions in as possible.

Is the First Minister aware that several hundred crew members of Philippine nationality work on boats that fish off the west coast of Scotland, many from the port of Mallaig? What can be done to halt the UK Border Agency's decision forcibly to repatriate Filipino crewmen, which could pose serious consequences for our fishing fleets in Scottish waters?

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment has written to Phil Woolas, the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration, to express our serious concerns and request an urgent meeting to discuss the situation. We will press for a sensible period of adjustment so that any changes to the enforcement of the existing immigration laws are managed in a way that does not jeopardise the operation of the fishing fleet.

At the fishing exhibition in May, the cabinet secretary announced the creation of a joint industry-Government new entrants working group, which met for the first time on 9 June. The group will propose ways of better promoting the attractiveness of the industry and communicating more effectively how to access the opportunities across the catching sectors, so that our fleets can become less reliant on Filipino crewmen. The group will also take forward work on the concerns about working conditions in the fleet.

Given that business, tourism and information technology are central to the Edinburgh economy, is the First Minister as appalled as I am that Edinburgh's Telford College, in my constituency, is talking about axing most of the teaching staff in its departments on those subjects in addition to support staff throughout the college? Will he intervene in that desperate situation, and will he ensure that Telford College gets a fair share of the Westminster consequentials that were announced for further education last week, along with corresponding bursary support, so that more, rather than fewer, students can be taught?

The constituency member is correct that the consequentials were announced last week. They will be distributed by the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. He will be aware that the tourism sector has been identified in relation to modern apprenticeships and work with colleges, and he will also be aware that colleges have benefited substantially from the accelerated capital investment that the Government has put in place. Although he will welcome that investment and the current situation, like me he will no doubt be looking forward with trepidation to the cuts—whether of £500 million, £1 billion or 2 per cent in real terms—that might well be on offer from a Tory or Labour Government at Westminster. That is exactly why we need political power in this Parliament, so that we do not have that perspective from either of those Westminster parties.

The investigation into Highlands and Islands Enterprise's procurement of contracts from its chairman's own company has resulted in 10 recommended courses of action to address the admitted weaknesses in HIE's systems. Will the First Minister ensure that all quangos in Scotland follow fair, open and accountable procurement procedures?

Yes, I will. The investigation confirmed that the contracts with Rocket Science (UK) were fully transparent and were awarded following proper procurement procedures. Ministers are satisfied that Willie Roe carried out his role as chair of HIE in a way that is entirely consistent with his terms of appointment. However, to keep the professional and public roles separate and to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest, Mr Roe will step down as chair of Rocket Science and sell any shares by the end of June. That is a sensible way in which to proceed. Any lessons from the investigation of the affair will, of course, be applied throughout the public sector in Scotland.

---

Lung Cancer

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to improve the outcomes for people with lung cancer. (S3F-1782)

Last October, we published "Better Cancer Care, An Action Plan" to improve cancer care in Scotland and outcomes for all those with a cancer diagnosis, including those with lung cancer. We established a Scottish cancer task force to oversee the delivery of that action plan, supported local and national awareness-raising campaigns and provided funding for new quick reference guidelines to support more effective referrals by general practitioners.

The latest statistics show that more than 95 per cent of lung cancer patients who were diagnosed between July and December last year were treated within 62 days of their urgent referral. That means that we are meeting the cancer waiting times target for the first time in the history of the Parliament. Stopping smoking, of course, is the single most important thing that an individual can do to reduce their risk of lung cancer and the Government has made significant progress towards creating a smoke-free Scotland. For example, 50,122 quit attempts were made last year, which is an increase of 14 per cent on the previous year. I am sure that all parliamentarians will welcome that progress.

I acknowledge the importance of early detection of the disease. The First Minister will be aware that, in the field of cancer treatment, much progress over the years has come by small incremental benefits rather than by the discovery of an instant cure, yet the cost per quality-adjusted life year measurement that is used by the Scottish Medicines Consortium sometimes prevents so-called end-of-life medicines from being made available to patients in Scotland. What assurances can the First Minister give that the modifiers that the consortium recently announced will be successful in that regard?

The SMC has a two-stage process. In the first stage, the new drugs committee provides scientific examination of the evidence submitted by the manufacturer of the drug in question, with detailed reviews by health economists, pharmacists and clinical expert advisers. It is at that stage that the evidence on the quality-adjusted life year or other health economic evidence is considered.

In the second stage, the full consortium examines the reviews and considers any submissions from the patient and public involvement group, any additional clinical information and current practice in Scotland. It then considers whether any of the modifiers apply. The modifiers are well known, are published on the website and include evidence of benefit to both life quality and life expectancy, focusing on the small increments that Ian McKee just mentioned. Where the submissions provide evidence of benefits at that stage, the modifiers will be used.

---

Scottish Futures Trust

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government is content with the progress that the Scottish Futures Trust is making. (S3F-1771)

Yes, indeed. Last week saw the publication of the SFT's business plan for 2009-10, which the Scottish Government endorses. The plan sets out ambitious and achievable objectives that the SFT intends to deliver over the coming 10 months, including support for specific projects valued at over £2.7 billion. As the member will be aware, next week the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will make a statement on the Scottish Futures Trust and the next phase of our school building programme. At that point, Mr Kerr might or—I know him well—might not choose to welcome the progress that is being made.

As we all know, the First Minister's contentment knows no bounds. Perhaps less content are the 20,000 construction workers in Scotland who have lost their jobs as a result of the Government's inaction and the 15,000 or so people who face unemployment because of that inaction. They are not sitting at home with supercilious grins on their faces; they are out looking for jobs as a result of this Government's inaction.

I will welcome progress if the First Minister is happy to be clear on the following three points. Does he share the view of his Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, who described the Scottish Futures Trust as being part of the public-private partnership family? Does he share the views of Mark Hellowell—often quoted by the First Minister—who said that the Scottish Futures Trust model is more expensive than PPP and "a minor variant" of the private finance initiative model? Alternatively, does he stand by the commitment on page 19 of his manifesto, of which I will remind him, that

"we will introduce a not-for-profit Scottish Futures Trust"?

Is that what we will see next week? A simple yes or no would suffice.

I cannot give a "simple yes or no" to three questions. If Andy wants a yes or no answer, he has to ask one question. Let me see whether I can help him. He was worried and asking about the expense of the Scottish Futures Trust. I tell him that it cannot possibly be as expensive as PFI/PPP. I have in my hand what we will call Kerr's bill or Andy's account—the list of payments that will have to be made.

First Minister, I must remind you that I have always asked for proper names to be used in the chamber, please.

Andy Kerr's account is a list of the payments that the Scottish Government and local authorities will have to make to 2041-42. Those payments are already committed to. Labour boasts about building schools and hospitals, but the reality is that it did not pay for a single one of them. The other reality is that we have paid over the odds for every PFI/PPP hospital, as in the well-versed example of Hairmyres hospital, where the profit has been many times the capital investment.

I looked at Andy Kerr's press release from last week—I had to look at it because there was not much uptake elsewhere. I did not like its selective quotation about the loss of construction jobs, which he mentioned again today. It is clear that construction is under severe pressure—that might be something to do with Gordon Brown's recession. However, in the past three quarters, the construction industry in Scotland has performed better than that throughout the UK. In the latest employment figures, far from being down by 20,000, construction employment in Scotland as at December last year was up by 1 per cent.

I know that figures are difficult for PFI enthusiasts, but perhaps Andy Kerr will dwell on my answers. Next time round, perhaps he should ask just one question.

The SFT's website said "coming soon" this morning, so at least something is under construction by the SFT.

Page 17 of the SFT's business plan, to which the First Minister referred, says:

"SFT does not itself, at this stage, have capital or revenue funding to support infrastructure investment".

However, Fiona Hyslop told the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee in June 2007 that there would be "futures-trust funded" schools. Will Futures Trust-funded schools be built or was she misleading Parliament?

The cabinet secretary will make a statement next week, but I am delighted by the quotation that the member chose to read out. Let us look at page 7 of the business plan. I agree that the first half of the sentence says:

"SFT does not currently control any of the capital budget or have any of its own sources of funding for infrastructure investment".

However, it is a pity that the member did not mention the second half of the sentence, which says:

"although this will change as projects, including the schools project, are announced."

I am sure that people who come to the chamber and quote half a sentence will be among those who, once they have heard the statement next week, will queue up with their local authorities to take advantage of the schools programme that the cabinet secretary will announce.

---

Class Sizes (Industrial Action)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Educational Institute of Scotland about the threat of industrial action by teachers regarding the Scottish National Party's manifesto pledge to reduce class sizes. (S3F-1781)

The Government has regular conversations and discussions with the EIS, as members would expect. I remind Margaret Smith that the EIS conference voted for industrial action to be considered in 2004 and 2006, under the previous Administration. Perhaps the difference now is that class sizes are indeed at a record low.

The First Minister knows that that was not the manifesto commitment that the SNP gave. He also knows that the EIS's general secretary, Ronnie Smith, challenged the Government's record on class sizes last week. It is worth repeating his comments. He said:

"If nationally, parties make manifesto promises, they must have the tools, the means of securing delivery. They cannot hide behind soft, touchy-feely understandings with councils or periodic bi-lateral chats and visitations. It is clear that some councils see themselves as bigger than the government when it comes to running schools and determining education policy".

Does the First Minister agree with Mr Smith? Does the First Minister share his and our scepticism that the election promise on class sizes will ever be delivered through the discredited soft, touchy-feely concordat?

I understand the frustration of EIS members at the rate of progress towards lower class sizes in some councils, but I cannot believe that Margaret Smith believes that going back to the old confrontation between Government and councils is the way forward. Will she not acknowledge that, when the EIS debated the issue on 10 June 2006 and then voted to consider industrial action, the way forward at that time was not to have an atmosphere of confrontation? There is much more chance of success through the concordat in an atmosphere of co-operation.

At 13.1 pupils per teacher, the pupil teacher ratio is at an historic low in Scotland, and for a second year running. It is also true that the rate is well below the rates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although, the rate of progress towards the target of 18 pupils per class in primary 1 to 3 has not been as rapid as we would expect in some council areas—indeed, an element of doubt remains over whether some councils believe in lower class sizes at all—nonetheless, there have been spectacular successes, which we should acknowledge. There has been a 15 per cent drop across the country in the number of primary 1 to 3 pupils in classes of over 25. In 2006, when the EIS last voted to consider industrial action, the figure was 38 per cent. Today, it is 23 per cent.

We may not have fully satisfied Margaret Smith as to the rate of progress, but at least she should acknowledge that, setting aside our aspirations for the future, the present situation is fundamentally better—indeed, it is transformed—than it was when she loyally supported an Administration that had much higher class sizes.