Plenary, 12 Mar 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, March 12, 2009

Official Report 758KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1526)

A key engagement this afternoon is to meet the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to discuss the outcome of the finance meeting with Welsh, Northern Irish and Treasury spokespeople. Iain Gray will have noticed the statements from Andrew Davies from Wales and Nigel Dodds from Northern Ireland warning of the impact of planned cuts in 2010. Those people are speaking up for their countries. When will Iain Gray be allowed to do the same?

I note, too, that the Scottish budget will continue to grow next year and the following year. I want to ask about the use to which the Scottish Government puts that money. I admit that I do not know Ellon academy, although the First Minister does. I read in one of today's newspapers that the buildings at Ellon academy are past their sell-by date, that pupils will not eat in the cafeteria and that they have to cross a busy road to get to classes, because the school has a split campus. I also read that a new school would have been built under the plans of the previous Labour-led Scottish Executive. The First Minister's fiscal dogma is putting Scottish kids in danger in his constituency. Does he think that that is okay?

Iain Gray says that spending in Scotland will continue to increase. Unfortunately, that is not the view of David Bell in a report to the Finance Committee, in which he points out that there is the possibility of real public spending falls in Scotland for the first time since the early 1980s, a view that was backed up at the weekend by John McLaren, the former Labour Party economist, who warned of exactly the same thing. Therefore, at some point, Iain Gray will have to come to terms with the cuts that are being forecast by the United Kingdom Treasury and their impact on Scottish budgets.

On the school building programme in Scotland, I am proud that more than 150 schools have already been completed or refurbished in this term of office. Iain Gray's lack of familiarity with Ellon does not come as any great surprise to me, as that school needed refurbishment right through Labour's wasted eight years in government.

The First Minister is good at taking credit for other people's work. The schools to which he refers were commissioned under the previous Executive. A plan to refurbish Ellon academy was made under the previous Executive. Official figures make it clear that it takes at least three years to get a school built from the date it is commissioned. To date, the First Minister has not commissioned a single school. Even if he says that he will pay for a brand new Ellon academy this very afternoon, it will not be built until 2012. Is not the First Minister's promise to match Labour's school building programme brick for brick now past the point of no return?

We will have built 250 schools during our term of office. Iain Gray forecasts that it takes three and a half years to build a school, and perhaps it does—under the private finance initiative. Only last month, Fiona Hyslop had the great pleasure of opening a school in Perth that was commissioned by the Government and Perth and Kinross Council in October 2007 under conventional procurement. As for paying for Labour's PFI schools, I have figures that are indeed frightening because they indicate that, over the next 30 years, there will be a £30 billion bill for the Labour Party's PFI mistakes. This year, £613 million will come out of the Scottish budget for councils and central Government to make PFI payments. Next year, the figure will be £723 million, rising to £1 billion by 2020—£30 billion will be paid by the Scottish people for Labour's mistakes. Labour members claim credit for the schools, but they did not pay for a single one of them.

I am delighted that the First Minister has seen fit to repeat his promise to deliver 250 schools by 2011. If I understood and accept his answer, he said that, far from commissioning no schools in two years, he has commissioned one. When will he rebuild Ellon academy?

Not for the first time, Iain Gray has misunderstood; I was giving an example of a school that has been commissioned and opened by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, belying Iain Gray's theory that it takes three and a half years to go from commissioning to opening a school. It may take that long under the Labour Party, but not under the Scottish National Party Government. The school in question is Dunning primary school in Perth.

If Iain Gray wants to catch me by surprise at First Minister's question time, it would be best for him not to pre-leak his story to The Scotsman. This morning, I asked for a list of the schools that have been commissioned during the SNP Government's term of office. We have commissioned the new Kingspark special school in Dundee; major refurbishments of Inveralmond community high school, James Young high school and St Kentigern's academy in West Lothian; four new primaries in South Lanarkshire; four new primaries in Glasgow; new primaries in Dumfries and Galloway; and the new Seaview primary in Angus. At present, £1 billion-worth of work is under way on major school projects. Now that that information has come to the attention of Iain Gray, will he accept that 250 schools will be built or refurbished during the SNP Government's term of office?

The business cases for some of the schools that the First Minister mentioned were agreed by the previous Executive. Some have been built by local authorities, using their own resources. None has been planned, commissioned, developed and built by the Scottish Government. The Government's position on this issue is just like its pledge on class sizes—it has made progress towards the target and will get there by 2099.

The First Minister has broken every promise that he has made on education. He broke his promise on nursery teachers. This week, another pledge—to provide two hours per week of physical education in schools—was broken. The pledge on teacher numbers has been broken. It will take 90 years for the pledge on class sizes to be met. The pledge on school building has also been broken. Every one of the Government's promises on education is collapsing, brick by brick.

The truth is that 832 of our schools need to be rebuilt and refurbished. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning is failing Scotland's children. When will the First Minister finally realise that she is past the point of no return?

We know that Iain Gray is struggling when he moves off the subject and wanders over the full range of activities. It is difficult without the autocue, so let us get back to schools. Now Iain Gray is asking not about schools that have been commissioned by the Government but about schools for which a business case may have been made some years ago. I gave him the list of schools that have been commissioned by the Government under conventional procurement. To complete his understanding, I could mention some of the other schools that have been signed off since May 2007—in Falkirk, Inverclyde, West Lothian, East Dunbartonshire and West Dunbartonshire—all of which will contribute to the 250 schools that will be completed or refurbished within the Government's term of office.

Iain Gray said that some of the schools have been built by local government—yes, schools are built by local government under this Government. Why has local government been able to build those schools? Perhaps it is because of the extra £100 million in the capital programme that the Government has delivered. If I remember rightly, that was included in a budget on which Iain Gray abstained.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1527)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future, although there may be a requirement for a meeting if important issues are not resolved over the next week or two.

Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice confirmed to the Parliament that the ludicrous and completely unacceptable anomaly of there being no time bar in Scotland to actions under human rights legislation is now being addressed. That legal defect has exposed the taxpayer to millions of pounds in compensation payments to criminals. Why has it taken so long for the Labour Government at Westminster and the Scottish National Party Government at Holyrood to sort it out? What happened in the 14 months between Mr MacAskill's letter to the Lord Chancellor on 25 October 2007 and December 2008 when the Labour Government said that no action would be taken? After all that, can the First Minister categorically confirm that the problem will be fixed before the summer recess?

Let us start with the positive. I am very hopeful, given the statements that have been made over the past 24 hours, that the problem can indeed be fixed. The way to do it was outlined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice yesterday. We need legislation to be tabled at Westminster—the required secondary legislation just needs to lie on the table of the House of Commons for 40 days—and then, with the co-operation, I hope, of all parties, emergency legislation is needed in this Parliament to sort out the anomaly.

Regarding the past 18 months, I could go over what has happened, but I am anxious to get a solution to the problem in the interests of the Scottish people. I am sure that Annabel Goldie will accept my word when I say that any delay was through no lack of urgency or action by this Administration.

Regrettably, I think that this disgraceful and expensive episode is further evidence of the broken relationship between the SNP Government at Holyrood and the Labour Government at Westminster. However, let me ask the First Minister about something for which he is exclusively responsible. If the time bar issue is of such importance to him, and if his concern for the taxpayer is as great as he maintains it is, why has he allowed slopping out to continue in Peterhead prison, which is in his constituency? How much will that cost the taxpayer?

There is in-cell sanitation at Peterhead, which is not the same as the slopping-out cases that have been pursued through the courts. Annabel Goldie will remember that within weeks of coming into office—after decades of delay—the Government committed to a new prison at Peterhead to serve the north-east of Scotland. The only way to solve the infrastructure problems of Scotland's prisons is to build new prisons to help the prison estate. I could remind Annabel Goldie that, during 17 years, not one prison was built in Scotland but, rather than do so, I look to continue an atmosphere of collegiate progress on the issue. For goodness' sake, let us unite as a Parliament to ensure that the Somerville anomaly can be removed so that valuable taxpayer cash in Scotland is devoted to fighting the recession rather than to giving grotesque payments to some of the most undesirable elements in our society.

Understandably, question 3 has been withdrawn. I propose instead to allow Mike Rumbles to ask two supplementary questions.

Presiding Officer, this is

"a Parliament of minorities where no one party rules without compromise or concession … The days of Scottish Government imposing its will on the Parliament are behind us".—[Official Report, 16 May 2007; c 24-5.]

Does the First Minister recognise those statements? Does he agree with them?

Let me first congratulate Tavish and Kirsten on the happy news, which explains his absence from the chamber. Let me also welcome Mike Rumbles to the front bench. After all those years of sedentary interventions, he has finally got here.

Yes, indeed, we lead a minority Government. Obviously, to fulfil our programme, we need to put every proposal through the Parliament, measure by measure, and appeal for support to gain a majority. On some occasions, we have managed to get that support from the Liberal Democrats—I think in particular of the move to restore free education to the people of Scotland—but I just wish that the Liberal Democrats would support us more so that more could be done to help the Scottish people.

The First Minister should indeed recognise those fine words, as they are taken from his nomination address in 2007. What I want to know is whether the rhetoric fits the reality.

In the past, when United Kingdom Governments put up the price of whisky, the Scottish National Party used to say that it was "damaging", "a betrayal", "punitive" and "entirely wrong". Alex Salmond used to lodge Opposition amendments to try to stop it happening. Now that he is in government, he has changed his mind. Why will his most controversial plan to impose a price rise that will hit the Scottish whisky industry not be open to full scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament and to democratic amendments? Why was that good enough for him at Westminster but not good enough for Holyrood? What should the whisky industry make of the decision? How can it get its voice heard properly in the Scottish Parliament?

The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, under which measures can be brought forward, was introduced into the Parliament by Tavish Scott so, obviously, it must have been a wise move.

I disagree entirely with the argument that proposals for minimum pricing will hit the whisky industry. Whisky must sell as a premium product. It is, of course, possible—I know this from my Westminster experience—both to oppose tax rises that go across the quality whisky brands and to support minimum pricing for alcohol. I plead in support Nick Clegg. He is in exactly that position of opposing punitive tax rises but supporting a minimum price for alcohol to stop deep discounting.

Nick Clegg is not attending the Scottish Liberal Democrats' spring conference at the weekend. Last year, the question was, "Who's Clegg?" This year, it will be, "Where's Clegg?" and next year, it will be, "Why Clegg?" Perhaps Nick Clegg is not attending the conference because Liberals do not want to hear a speech in which the health benefits of a minimum price for alcohol are extolled.

I will take further supplementary questions from Trish Godman and Patrick Harvie.

Given the First Minister's knowledge of the fishing industry, he will recall the fatal accident inquiry into the deaths of the crew of the Antares, which was sunk by a nuclear submarine in the Firth of Clyde in November 1990. Will he impress on his law officers the need for an FAI into the deaths of the three crew members of the tug the Flying Phantom, which foundered in the River Clyde in December 2007? The crew members were constituents of mine and my colleague Duncan McNeil. Does the First Minister agree that the widows and families of the crew of the Flying Phantom, and other seafarers, deserve a fatal accident inquiry into that terrible tragedy on the Clyde?

As the member anticipates in her question, the decision on such inquiries is a matter for the law officers. I undertake to discuss the matter with them, after which I will write to the member. She is also right in saying that, for constituency reasons, I have had involvement with many maritime tragedies over the years. I well understand the feelings of the relatives of those who are lost in such tragedies and their commitment to get the fullest explanation of why a tragedy occurred.

The First Minister will be aware of the disruption to public transport in Glasgow, apparently as a result of the construction of the M74 motorway extension. Obviously, some of us argued all along that that absurd scheme would undermine public transport, but even I did not expect something to happen quite so directly or quickly. Will the First Minister assure the chamber that the delay and any cost increase in what is already a wildly expensive construction project will not cost the taxpayer a penny? Can he guarantee that the cost for the disruption to the subway that the construction caused and the repairs will be borne by the consortium that is carrying out the work and not by the taxpayer or fare-paying passenger?

The matter is a serious one. At present, the contractual issues are under investigation and—I hope—resolution.

Patrick Harvie needs only to glance around Edinburgh to come to the conclusion that transport projects of which he is a passionate supporter can have unintended consequences as far as city infrastructure is concerned. I note that, over the past three weeks, none of the parties that voted in June 2007 to go forward with the Edinburgh trams project has raised the issue at First Minister's question time.

---

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

To ask the First Minister what consideration the Scottish Government has given to the Scottish Information Commissioner's call to extend the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to cover a wider range of organisations. (S3F-1531)

In November 2008, the Scottish Government published a discussion paper seeking views on an extension of the act to housing associations, bodies set up by local authorities—for example, leisure trusts—and contractors delivering public services. The closing date for the consultation was 12 January. The responses, which have all been published on the Government website, are being considered.

Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish freedom of information legislation has proved highly effective in making government open, accountable and transparent, in stark contrast to the clawing-back of FOI legislation by the increasingly secretive Labour Government in London? Once the consultation is finished and once we are through this economic crisis, I look forward to the Scottish FOI legislation being extended to housing associations and other relevant bodies. I hope that the First Minister does, too.

I certainly agree that this Government is much more accountable and transparent than the Labour Government in London. It would be wrong of me to anticipate the results of the consultation, but one matter that is certainly of public interest and should be focused on is the previous excuses for not revealing the full extent of private finance contracts and obligations on the public sector, which are threadbare. If contracts are made at public expense, the public have the right to know the full financial implications.

I genuinely welcome the First Minister's statement on this point. Does he agree that the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 has made a significant contribution to opening up the corridors of power in Scotland and letting individual citizens know what is being done in their name? In particular, does he agree that there would be a great deal of good in opening up Glasgow Housing Association and the myriad arm's-length bodies to full scrutiny by the citizen under the FOI legislation? Can he indicate when new legislation might be likely to progress through the Parliament, following the Government's consideration of the consultation responses?

I allowed Christine Grahame to tempt me into one aspect of the outcome of the consultation, but we had better get the consultation over and finished before we decide on the date of any possible legislation. Referring to the area that I discussed with Christine Grahame a few seconds ago, I think that I am on the same page as Robert Brown.

Would the First Minister not agree that another way of obtaining information and holding Governments to account, which he has used very effectively in Westminster, is through the means of written parliamentary questions?

I know that I have made it when praise comes from all parts of the chamber. I would have to acknowledge, in return, that Lord George asks more questions than the rest of the Parliament put together. I suppose that if the member applies that approach to questions, he will hit the bull's-eye at some point.

---

Student Hardship (Universities)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to address student hardship among those at university. (S3F-1534)

As Claire Baker knows, the Scottish Government has put in place a number of policies to help students and to tackle student hardship. After years of neglect under the previous Administration, we restored the principle of free education, with the abolition of the graduate endowment fee of approximately £2,300. That will benefit more than 50,000 graduates and students. It will also help to relieve some of the financial pressure on graduates as they start their working lives.

That compares with the reality for students under the previous Labour and Conservative Administrations, when students were loaded with debt. In 1999, the average debt of a student in Scotland was £2,863. By 2006, it had doubled to £5,737. I am delighted to tell the Parliament that, for the first time since devolution, the student debt level in Scotland fell in 2007, under the Scottish National Party Government.

SNP actions in government have been wholly inadequate in tackling student hardship. Just this morning, the president of the National Union of Students Scotland, Gurjit Singh, said that abolishing the graduate endowment had

"little impact on the day to day life of students and does nothing to tackle the issue of financial hardship students face while studying."

What will the First Minister do to address the needs of the 35 institutions that have requested additional funds to tackle student hardship, considering that more than half of what is requested—more than £6 million—is not being met by the Government? Will he today pledge to bin his inadequate student support consultation and to produce new proposals that provide a minimum of £7,000 for Scotland's poorest students, relieving pressure on hardship funds and finally acting to address student hardship?

I did not tell Claire Baker in my first answer—although I am sure she knows—that we have also introduced a £38 million package of support for part-time learners in higher education. That removes from them the need to rely on student loans and benefits up to 20,000 students. We have also increased the threshold for the non-medical personal helpers element of disabled student allowance by 60 per cent, which is of huge importance to disabled students.

Claire Baker should also know that we have increased the funds that are available for student hardship from the £14 million that we inherited from the previous Administration to £16.1 million this year. That is a rise of 15 per cent. We should acknowledge not only that student debt has fallen for the first time since devolution but that its level of £5,354, which is still high, compares with £9,309 south of the border. Perhaps she could mention some of the good intentions that she has for students to her colleagues in the Westminster Government.

The First Minister is, of course, aware that there was £14.04 million in discretionary funds in 2006-07, which the SNP inherited from the Liberal Democrat-Labour Administration. Is he also aware that the Student Awards Agency for Scotland also budgeted £14 million in 1999-2000 and that the previous Administration's legacy was discretionary funds that stood still in the face of student hardship but are now finally getting the increases that they deserve under the SNP?

I agree with that. We have made an almost 15 per cent increase in funds for student hardship.

I watched the Labour conference with great interest—I think that there is a bigger audience here today than there was at that conference. I counted up all the millions that the Labour Party would spend if only it got power back in Scotland and could not help but think that the almost £100 million of pledges that Labour made in that single weekend contrasted sharply with the £500 million of cuts that the United Kingdom Labour Government has in store for Scotland.

Talking of spending commitments, I remind the First Minister that, at the most recent Scottish election, he and his acolytes went round the campuses of Scottish universities promising students that an SNP Government would dump the debt. Will he now apologise for that broken promise?

My acolytes and I will celebrate the fact that, in the teeth of Tory opposition, the Government has reintroduced free education for the people of Scotland.

---

General Practitioners (Appointment Times)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Scottish council of the Royal College of General Practitioners and others regarding GP appointment times. (S3F-1538)

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has regular contact with the Royal College of General Practitioners in Scotland on a broad range of issues that relate to general practice.

The length of time that is available for general practitioner consultations is not set by the Government but determined by the practice, and the length of an individual consultation is determined by the clinical needs of each patient. The Scottish Government's target on access to GP services is that anyone who contacts their GP practice should have guaranteed access to a GP, nurse or other health care professional within 48 hours.

The Scottish Government continues to invest in general practice. Total investment has increased by 38 per cent since the new GP contract was introduced in 2003-04 and reached £698.4 million in 2007-08. The number of GPs contracted to work in Scotland has also increased from 4,553 in 2005 to 4,721 in 2007.

Notwithstanding what the First Minister said, no less a person than Dr Ken Lawton, the chairman of the Scottish council of the Royal College of General Practitioners, says that the amount of time that is allocated for each visit to a GP should be increased from the current standard of 10 minutes to a quarter of an hour. Dr Dean Marshall, the head of the British Medical Association's Scottish GP committee, says exactly the same thing. Does the First Minister agree that it is extremely worrying that doctors' leaders feel that there is not enough time for patients? Surely a swift and accurate first diagnosis is crucial to the fight against disease. Does the First Minister accept that GPs need the time to get the diagnosis right?

Yes, I do. However, I am sure that Jamie Stone would agree that the clinical reasons that I gave in my first answer also predominate. I undertake to have the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing write to Jamie Stone to explain some of the thinking behind the measures. I point out to him that Jean Turner, who is executive director of the Scotland Patients Association and well known to members, is on record as being delighted about the extra appointments and working hours being offered by GPs to the people of Scotland. However, I undertake to have the cabinet secretary write to Jamie Stone to address some of his concerns.

We started slightly late, so I will take a brief supplementary question from Dr Richard Simpson.

Further to the answers that the First Minister has given, can he invite his cabinet secretary to take steps to move beyond the 48-hour access guarantee to ensure best practice for appointments and ensure that not only rapid access for emergency matters but routine appointments when patients request them in advance are applied throughout the whole of general practice?

I will get the cabinet secretary to write to Dr Richard Simpson. I know that he, by obvious definition, has considerable expertise in these matters, so I will get Nicola Sturgeon to write to him directly on the point that he raised.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—