Plenary, 12 Feb 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, February 12, 2009

Official Report 700KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1446)

I have a variety of engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland, including an arranged call with Rhodri Morgan, the Welsh First Minister.

That will be a change from yesterday, when the First Minister threw the Government's programme for Scotland into reverse. Yesterday, when he dumped his flagship local income tax, he was caught redhanded selling short Scottish voters—his own definition of a spiv and speculator. This week, even the bankers had to say sorry. Will he say sorry to the Scottish voters for the way that he conned them?

Apologies are required from the council tax cabal of Labour and the Tories, who have voted to uphold the council tax in Scotland—it is a Valentine's day love-in between the Labour and Conservative parties. There should also be apologies from those at Westminster who are planning £500 million of cuts in Scottish public services.

As I said, I am calling Rhodri Morgan this afternoon. In preparation for that call, I looked through what Rhodri Morgan has had to say about proposed public spending cuts from Westminster. In December, he said:

"now is the wrong time to be cutting public spending".

If Rhodri Morgan can speak for Wales, why is Iain Gray not allowed to speak for Scotland?

Sorry truly is the hardest word. As usual, the First Minister, in a crisis, blames everyone, blames early and blames often. As the First Minister retreats in the snow from his local income tax, like Napoleon from Moscow, he is still shaking his fist and declaring that local income tax will be back. However, we all know that LIT is just a bad policy. It would damage the Scottish economy and destroy local services. Even the Tories have told the Scottish National Party that, and they know all about bad taxes and destroying services. The First Minister conned the voters once with LIT; it would be shameless to try to con them again. Will he dump this unwanted and unworkable tax for good?

There is no point in Iain Gray attacking the Conservatives—he and the Conservatives have been combining to vote down local income tax in the Parliament.

The SNP manifesto had 94 headline manifesto commitments. I am delighted to tell Parliament that we have already achieved 46 of them—almost half—and, as Labour members know, we are not yet halfway through the parliamentary session.

I remember a revealing interview given by Iain Gray, when he became the Opposition leader, in which he explained why Labour had not implemented its promises to reform council tax. He said that the previous proposals were drawn up

"on the back of a fag packet",

so I do not think that Iain Gray is in a position to lecture any party about proposals for local government finance.

Let us see what position the First Minister is in to lecture us about competence. Two weeks ago, the Parliament threw out the First Minister's budget, because it was not up to the job. This week, the First Minister threw out three of his ministers, because they were not up to the job. Yesterday, he threw out his flagship policy, because it is not up to the job. The First Minister's credibility is shot to pieces. Is it not Alex Salmond who is not up to the job?

Last week, the budget was passed by a resounding majority, with the support of the Labour Party. As for ministerial changes, I have been glancing back at the previous two sessions. If we exclude changes that were made for tragic reasons, there were 21 changes to the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration in two sessions. The figure includes Frank McAveety, who managed to resign twice—once in each session. This Administration is a sea of calm compared with the chaos that reigned during the Labour-Liberal Administrations. Perhaps that is why we are leading in the opinion polls and support for Scottish independence is strengthening, as people recognise the implications of a £500 million cut in Scottish public expenditure, planned by Westminster and accepted by Iain Gray.

This is Iain Gray's final question.

Here is the manifesto that Mr Salmond was talking about. Paying off student debts—that is gone. A replacement for public-private partnership—that is gone. Replacing the council tax—that, too, is now gone. The only flagship policy in the SNP manifesto that is left is independence—tearing Scotland out of the UK. Business does not want that. Trade unions do not want that. It would ruin Scotland's economy. Not a single opinion poll has shown that the Scottish public want independence—not one, not ever. There is no majority in the Parliament for independence. If that is good enough for LIT, it is good enough for independence. Let us finish the job of tearing up the SNP manifesto. Will the First Minister dump independence, as well, right now?

If Iain Gray wanted the fair system of local tax that we have proposed, why on earth did he not vote for it in the Parliament?

I notice that Iain Gray is trying to avoid the subject of the £500 million of Labour cuts. Is he doing so because of Andy Kerr's remarkable interview on "Good Morning Scotland", which should be put on the record so that everyone can be treated to the full extent of its absurdity? The highlight was Andy Kerr's response when he was asked what he thought the level of cuts would be. He answered that well, funnily,

"no one knows the exact figure, because it has not been worked through the system."

However, the analysis that is before the Parliament's Finance Committee points to £500 million of Labour cuts.

As for the referendum on independence, is that really Iain Gray's strongest suit? Let us say that SNP members are still with the Duncan declaration—the commitment from Duncan McNeil on 6 May last year. He said that all Labour MSPs

"agreed with the new policy, some were relieved and that they would support a referendum whenever it was called."

We are confident that, having made the blunder of stopping a fair system of local taxation in Scotland, even the Labour Party would not try to deny the people of Scotland the right to vote on their future.

We will have one final brief question from Iain Gray.

Here is what David Bell, the adviser to the Parliament's Finance Committee, said:

"The effect of the changes announced in the 2008 PBR on Scotland's DEL resource allocation coming through Barnett consequentials will not be significant."

This is a fig-leaf to cover up a U-turn on a policy that would not work.

Funnily enough, I have David Bell's paper in front of me here. On the 2010-11 resources, David Bell said:

"If these savings are shared equally across DEL budgets, then the Scottish Government's budget would fall by £380m".

He went on to analyse the health budget:

"This is not a reprofiling and will mean a recurring reduction of around £125m in the Scottish Government capital budget."

I point out to Iain Gray that £380 million plus £125 million comes to £505 million. That is a figure that Iain Gray and Andy Kerr had better get used to, because it will haunt them every day from now until the Scottish general election.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1447)

I have a couple of meetings with the secretary of state coming up over the next few weeks.

The exchange between the First Minister and Mr Gray highlights two things: that the Scottish Government has indeed scrapped another flagship policy; and that the Labour Party has nothing to offer apart from volumes of verbosity. One thing is clear, however: the council tax remains with us, and only the Scottish Conservatives have a viable plan to reform it, to cut it for every household in Scotland and to go further for our pensioners.

In Labour's recession, a council tax freeze is a welcome first step. Just a few weeks ago, the First Minister agreed with the Scottish Conservatives that a council tax freeze is not enough. Given that we are now keeping the council tax, just what does the Scottish Government propose to do?

I would be the first to acknowledge the Conservative party's enthusiasm for having policies on the matter. Indeed, it has had five policies in the past five years. There was the real-terms freeze—real-terms, note—in 2003. There was a discount of £500 million in the 2005 manifesto. There was cutting half of council tax for pensioners under the manifesto of 2007. Then there was Derek Brownlee's declaration last year that council tax would be cut by about 25 per cent. It culminated in David Cameron's agreement, towards the end of last year, that a council tax freeze was an excellent thing to propose.

I accept that there are elements of sense in those five policies, particularly in the argument for a council tax freeze. When any party in the Parliament puts forward elements of sense, the Government is of course willing to listen. However, I cannot help feeling that what people in Scotland want is a new system of taxation that is fair and based on the ability to pay, rather than attempts to mitigate the impact of the unfair council tax.

The First Minister has just stated the absurd. If the local income tax policy were such a sound, solid, workable and fair one, as he claimed at the time of the election, when he was so intent on wooing voters, why is he not prepared to go to the ramparts to fight and argue for it, and to get it delivered?

The First Minister knows that his policy has been discredited, that it is unmanageable, that it is incapable of being delivered and that it has been meeting with increasing criticism and condemnation from just about every quarter of opinion in Scottish society. I thank him for giving credit to the Conservatives for at least having a policy on council tax, but he has failed to tell me what the Scottish Government proposes to do, now that it has ditched its discredited local income tax and is leaving us with the council tax. What exactly has he got that he can tell council tax payers about?

We now know—

A question, please.

The jobless total in Scotland has risen by nearly 50 per cent in the past 12 months and all predictions for the economy are chilling. Repeatedly, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance—

No—a question, please, Miss Goldie. I must press you.

Mr Fergusson, given that Mr Gray was allowed five questions, I think that I might be allowed an expanded second one.

Come to a question, please, Miss Goldie.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth explained that he had the £281 million that would have been necessary to subsidise his now defunct local income tax. Will the First Minister, as the Scottish Conservatives have repeatedly demanded, cut council tax bills for every household in Scotland using that money? That is the only proposal in town at the moment.

Annabel Goldie should come to terms with the £500 million cut in public spending that is proposed by the Westminster Government. We and all sensible parties in the chamber will fight against that, but we cannot ignore that it—or something like it—is being proposed in the pre-budget report. That is something that is coming at the Scottish people, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament.

Annabel Goldie asks what we are going to do. We have every confidence that councils around Scotland will today follow the lead of the four that have already voted for a council tax freeze. We hope and believe that another 18 councils will vote for a council tax freeze in council chambers this afternoon. Why is that significant? It is because the Conservative party, which introduced the council tax, put it up by 40 per cent and, in the 10 years from 1997, under Labour, it went up another 60 per cent. The reason why the council tax freeze in Scotland is so widely welcomed is that those parties—the council tax parties—between them managed to double the council tax. That is why people in Scotland will think that effective action by the Scottish National Party Government is providing relief for household bills. That is why they continue to support the SNP Government.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1448)

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

The First Minister's election address for Gordon features smiling people, who said that they were voting for Alex Salmond because he would abolish the unfair council tax. Are they still smiling, or will he simply use the same photo for the next election address?

Tavish Scott and the Liberal Democrats should accept—the votes in the Parliament certainly indicated as much—that it was not going to be possible for us to find an agreement on a proposal for a local income tax to replace the council tax. They should accept that the vote on 4 December indicated that our support for the local income tax was not going to produce enough votes to carry the chamber. It is only a week or so since Tavish Scott accepted that his proposal for a 2p cut in income tax did not carry the support of the chamber. Where am I wrong in saying that, despite our support for a fair system of local taxation, we did not have the votes in the chamber to carry it?

I am grateful to the First Minister for mentioning votes in Parliament. This week, the First Minister has got his priorities wrong. He did not appoint a new minister for economic recovery; he appointed a new superminister for independence, grandstanding in Parliament, holding roadshows in every town, wasting taxpayers' money and soaking up time—time that should be used to strengthen small business in the face of recession, to help the eight unemployed people chasing every vacancy, and to turn round stalled economic growth.

We need action on recession, not rhetoric on secession. Why does the First Minister not follow his new Salmond rule of government, which says, "You can abandon any promise, however solemn, as long as you've got a long enough list of people to blame." He can drop the independence bill and put my name on the list of people to blame. Will he focus the Government on finding the way out of recession and abandon the independence bill here and now?

It is only a week since Tavish Scott and the Liberal Democrats supported the Government's budget. They were able to do so precisely because we accepted and have as policies a range of measures that are helping Scotland to combat recession. As far as small business is concerned, one of the key measures is the small business bonus, which is helping tens of thousands of businesses across the country.

As I interpreted Tavish Scott's first supplementary question, he was attacking the Scottish National Party for being unable to secure a parliamentary majority to implement a manifesto commitment on local income tax. In the second question, he was asking us to abandon a manifesto commitment for an independence referendum. On the day he was elected as leader of the Liberal Democrats, he said that he was "not intuitively against" giving the people of Scotland a choice in their own future. He should go back to what he said on the day of his election, accept the democratic will of the people and support a referendum bill when it is introduced.

The First Minister will be aware of the shocking report on child protection services in the Moray Council area that was published by inspectors today. The report shows major failings in very basic and necessary child protection procedures. Will he, along with the Minister for Children and Early Years, ensure that the agencies in Moray are left in no doubt about the need for radical improvement in their services? Further, will the First Minister ensure that, within the next six months, inspectors return to Moray to give assurance to the population there and to the Parliament that progress is being made on the change agenda that is required?

The straight answer to the question is yes, I will. The Parliament should recognise the seriousness of the report on Moray Council. We should also recognise that the system of inspection that has been established in Scotland is proving to be extremely effective. Of the reports that we have had so far, 11 have shown no weaknesses in council provision, 12 have shown some areas for concern, which are being addressed, and three, including that on Moray, have shown serious deficiencies or an unacceptable level of performance. Now that an action plan is in place, it is imperative that we have strong and committed leadership from Moray Council and its partners to ensure that the plan is delivered fully. As Peter Peacock suggested, there must be no excuses or buck passing by those who are responsible. We are monitoring Moray Council's performance closely. Any failure to act will be met by action from the Scottish Government.

One issue that should give us optimism on such a serious matter is that, in the other two councils in which reports have identified serious deficiencies in the vital area of children's services—Midlothian Council and Aberdeen City Council—substantial progress has been made. I hope that I can reassure the member that the Scottish Government will ensure that the same pattern of substantial progress is repeated in Moray Council.

---

Universities (International Student Visas)

To ask the First Minister what impact new United Kingdom visa rules for international students will have on Scotland's universities. (S3F-1449)

International students make an important contribution to Scotland and they help to sustain and drive forward our economy, even in these difficult times. They also enhance the cultural diversity of our country. We are concerned about the possibility of fewer international students from outside the European Union coming to Scotland. The new system limits them to a four-year visa in the first instance and will introduce additional costs. We are also concerned about the additional administrative burden and expense for our universities and colleges in implementing the system. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has on several occasions written and spoken to UK ministers about our concerns. We will continue to press UK ministers on the issues. Specifically, we urge that dialogue between Home Office officials and stakeholders should continue through the joint education task force.

As the First Minister is aware, more than 58,000 overseas students study in Scotland. Based on the experience in the United States post-9/11, the Labour Government's plan to introduce new and incredibly complex visa rules could cost Scotland's universities up to £50 million a year, which is why Universities Scotland has expressed serious concerns. Does he agree with Universities Scotland that scaring away overseas students

"with complex regulations would be madness for our economy and madness for our society",

and that

"With America opening its doors to students again, and many other countries stepping up recruitment strategies, this is the worst possible time to tie the hands of Scottish universities recruiting overseas"?

Yes, I agree. I saw a story on that in the Sunday Herald at the weekend, which I think contained that quotation from Universities Scotland. Some progress has been made in the past year, although not enough. The new system originally would have required students to have substantial funds—£800 a month—but, following representations, that was cut. We have lost the Scottish advantage through the fresh talent initiative's two years' leave to remain, as that now applies throughout the UK, but we successfully retained the higher national diploma qualification as a criterion for the scheme. As that pertains only in Scotland, that is therefore still an advantage. We successfully opposed the proposal in a consultation document to cut the leave to remain for academic visitors from 12 months to three months. After representations, that proposal was reversed.

However, those concessions are not enough. The attitude that seems to be displayed through the new system is fundamentally wrong-headed. We should encourage more overseas students into our universities because they strengthen our academic system, universities' finances and cultural diversity. I hope and believe that the entire chamber can unite on that point in getting the argument across to the UK Government.

Does the First Minister recognise that the four-year visa covers the vast majority of Scottish degrees, that renewing the visa should be straightforward for genuine students and that the visa charges are not significant compared with international students' fees? Scottish colleges strongly welcomed the visa moves, believing that they will weed out bogus institutions and students. As he recognises, the previous Scottish Government showed, through the fresh talent initiative, that negotiation can secure more suitable terms for Scotland in relation to immigration and border control. Will he work with the whole Parliament on a cross-party basis so that we can all focus on delivering the improvements that Scottish universities want to see?

Yes, we will work with the whole Parliament, which is what I said in my first answer. However, Claire Baker should recognise that the universities and colleges have very serious concerns about the proposed system. I outlined some of the concessions that we have been able to win from, or agree with, the UK Government over the past year, which will mitigate some of the effects that people are concerned about. However, make no mistake—the colleges and universities are seriously concerned about the nature of the proposals. Although I welcome the opportunity to work with the whole Parliament, and Fiona Hyslop and others will of course make representations to UK ministers to try to persuade them to change their mind on these issues, I merely ask Labour and other members whether it would not be better if we could take decisions on these issues for ourselves as opposed to having to depend on lobbying people from elsewhere.

---

Human Trafficking

To ask the First Minister, in light of reports that around 700 victims of human trafficking for sexual exploitation are living in Scotland, whether the Scottish Government will ask the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency to set up an internal specialist unit to tackle this problem. (S3F-1464)

Human trafficking is a high priority for the Scottish Government and, indeed, for the Scottish police service. In Scotland, the pentameter 2 operation to target human trafficking in 2007-08 resulted in 56 premises being visited, 35 arrests, 59 potential adult victims being recovered and cash seizures of £17,500.

The Scottish Government has provided funding of £70,950 to the trafficking awareness-raising alliance, which provides support to women who have been trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation and aims to raise awareness among front-line staff in agencies that are likely to come into contact with victims of trafficking.

The SCDEA will continue to work with the eight Scottish forces and with United Kingdom law enforcement agencies to identify and address those responsible for human trafficking.

Given those disturbing reports and Amnesty International UK's research showing that, within the UK, Scotland has a disproportionate number of victims of such offences, is it not time to establish a unit in the SCDEA to tackle trafficking? Will the First Minister not only continue constructive engagement with UK counterparts on trafficking but consider reform of the law, because the successful police operations in Scotland against these appalling crimes of exploitation, to which he referred, have not been followed by prosecutions?

We will listen to any constructive proposals to address what is a serious problem. The estimate that we provided was based on research that focused on data from the police, the statutory agencies, victims services and non-governmental organisations. They were substantial data. Richard Baker should acknowledge that Amnesty International UK said that it

"welcomes the funding made available by the Scottish Government for local authorities to support victims of other forms of trafficking. Scotland is the only part of the UK with this provision."

---

Free Personal Care (Food Preparation Charges)

To ask the First Minister, in light of the decision to prevent local authorities from charging pensioners for assistance with food preparation, what guarantees the Scottish Government will offer that charges hitherto levied will be refunded. (S3F-1455)

In her statement to Parliament on 7 May 2008, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing accepted Lord Sutherland's finding that the current legislation on charging for food preparation was not clear. She committed to working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to prepare clarifying legislation.

We have prepared the revised legislation with the support and assistance of COSLA and the Association of Directors of Social Work, and we laid it before Parliament on Monday. That will ensure that there is clarity on those food preparation services for which vulnerable older people who need help with food preparation in their own homes cannot be charged.

The issue of possible refunds of previous charges is a matter for each council. It depends on the specific circumstances and assessed needs of each individual client, in the light of legislation as it applied at that time.

I thank the First Minister for the first part of his reply, but he must accept that, after two years in government, the new regulations, however welcome, have been a long time coming. Given that his Government supported the resolution of the Parliament last May, what action will he personally take to instruct councils—including Argyll and Bute Council and Renfrewshire Council in the west of Scotland—to reimburse all pensioners who have been illegally charged?

Action has been taken. For the first time, the Parliament's aspiration for free personal care as it was originally envisaged is being backed by the legislative process and by the Government's implementation of the policy. Jackson Carlaw should welcome that, as pensioners and their families around the country most certainly do.

I do not need to tell Jackson Carlaw about the difficulties with retrospective legislation. He knows as well as I do that retrospective legislation is extremely difficult. Obviously, before introducing legislation, we have been encouraging councils to do the right thing by their pensioners. Only a very few councils in Scotland are still charging. For example, Argyll and Bute Council stopped charging from September 2008. I note that one of the few remaining councils that is still charging—Scottish Borders Council—is one of the few that have a Conservative administration. In terms of exhorting councils, we should be exhorting all the parties involved. Jackson Carlaw should face his responsibilities in that, as we in the Scottish Government are facing ours.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—