Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, May 13, 2010

Official Report 954KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day (S3F-2386)

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

Two weeks ago, I asked the First Minister whether he would match Labour’s election promise to protect our schools and hospitals. He said, “Yes.” Was he telling the truth?

As Iain Gray knows, I always aspire to tell the truth at First Minister’s question time, just as every member of the Parliament does.

During the election campaign, the Scottish National Party wished to have a position where we could more than match any of the London parties in terms of the future of the Scottish economy. We recognised that we could do that only by having economic powers in Scotland to enable us to grow the economy and get people back to work.

The First Minister also aspired to win 20 seats last Thursday and he fell pretty far short—[Interruption.]

Order.

Just as a baker’s dozen is 13 instead of 12, a Salmond score is six instead of 20.

I suspect that the First Minister probably could not bring himself to read the Scottish press on the day after the election. If he had done so, he would have read that 700 jobs are to go in NHS Lothian, mental health provision is being slashed and a new kidney unit is being cancelled in NHS Ayrshire and Arran, and 500 cleaning hours are being cut at Glasgow royal infirmary. When he told the chamber that he would protect the national health service, was he covering up those cuts, or does he just not know what is going on? Is the First Minister shameless or just clueless?

NHS spending across Scotland this year is £264 million higher. That is the budget increase for the NHS in Scotland, despite the reduction of £500 million in the Scottish Government budget.

Before Iain Gray moves into full oppositionist mode and tries to deny responsibility for the budget cuts that are currently being visited on Scotland by the previous Labour Government, and before he tries to refight the general election, he should remember that the Labour Party’s claim in the general election was that if people in Scotland voted Labour, they would be protected from a Conservative Government. People in Scotland did vote Labour, Labour won 41 seats and we now have a Conservative Government at Westminster. [Interruption.]

Order.

On Monday, the Prime Minister announced at 5 past 5 that he was opening talks with the Liberal Democrats to form a progressive alliance that he said would be much better for the country. At 8.49, John Reid came on television to say:

“I think the decision to try and enter a Lib-Lab pact, coalition, is potentially a disastrously wrong one for the country, for the party and for Gordon himself.”

If we have the extraordinary position of Labour, having failed to win the election despite gathering the support of the Scottish people, ducking the opportunity to form an anti-Tory Government, how on earth can Iain Gray or any other Labour MSP come to the chamber and start complaining about the Tory cuts to come?

We will get to the Tory cuts to come in a moment.

At 11 o’clock this very morning, unions emerged from a meeting with Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board at which they had been presented with the plan that I have in my hand—a plan to cut more than 1,200 jobs in Glasgow’s NHS this year, more than half of which are nurse and midwife posts. Is that what the First Minister calls protecting our NHS?

NHS spending in Scotland this year is higher in real terms than it was in previous years, despite the £500 million of cuts. There is a theory currently abroad that the reason why so many Labour MPs preferred opposition to government and were unwilling to allow the talks on a Labour-Liberal Democrat progressive alliance to progress—[Interruption.]

Order.

—is that they wanted to spend the next five years absolving themselves of any responsibility for the economic crisis that they visited on this country and the huge public spending cuts to come. Is there anybody on the Labour benches who really does not know that the Labour Party’s own plans, in presenting cuts that were to be tougher and deeper than those of Margaret Thatcher, involved £25 billion of public spending cuts in Scotland over the next 10 to 15 years? Are we really being presented with the alibi that it is all the fault of the Tories and the Liberal Democrats?

No, the health board cuts are the First Minister’s fault. The document that I hold makes it clear who asked for this plan: it was the Scottish Government health department, on 9 April. Nicola Sturgeon is not letting those cuts happen; she is demanding them of the health board. If voters had known what that lot are up to, they would not have given them six seats never mind 20. Yes, there are £6 billion of cuts coming from the Con-Dem parties over there, but this is the alliance that Alex Salmond is part of: cuts, cuts, cuts.

Yesterday, Alex Salmond wrote to David Cameron, telling him that he does not want cuts here. Can I suggest that he uses his mighty hand to write to his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to tell her that we do not want her cuts in our hospitals?

When the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer promised at the start of the election campaign that the cuts would be coming and that they would be tougher and deeper than those of Margaret Thatcher, he was not talking about the cuts to come from the Conservatives and the Liberals. He was talking about the cuts under the Labour Party. When the Labour Party said to the people, “Vote Labour and we’ll stop the Tories,” it forgot to mention that it was going to lose 100 seats south of the border and that a Tory Government would come, regardless of how Scotland voted.

When I meet the Prime Minister in the very near future, would it not be a tremendous asset if I was able to say that the Scottish Government and the leading Opposition party in Scotland are united in wanting Scotland to have capital acceleration, borrowing powers, the £180 million fossil fuel levy and the Olympic consequentials that should be running into the Scottish economy? All those things were denied us by a Labour Administration in Westminster. However, unencumbered by the guilt of office at Westminster, surely our Opposition leader can now join with the Government in asking on behalf of Scotland that those things are done to revive the economy and protect our vital public services.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister, David Cameron. (S3F-2387)

I think that Annabel Goldie knows the answer to that question: I expect to meet the Prime Minister in the very near future.

I hope that the First Minister will try to have a better working relationship with the new Prime Minister than he had with the previous one. Scotland has been badly served by the First Minister’s politics of gripe and grievance over the past three years. His attitude has damaged the relationship between our Governments and our Parliaments.

I know that the Prime Minister has already spoken to the First Minister—thankfully, unlike the previous two Prime Ministers, the current one knows how to use a phone—and will meet him very soon. When they meet, will the First Minister welcome the fact that our new Government will scrap Labour’s job tax, scrap Labour’s identity cards, keep the winter fuel allowance, keep free television licences for over-75s, keep child benefit, increase pensions, reform our banks, protect our armed forces abroad and do so much more? Will he work with the new politics and abandon his girn and his whinge?

When I meet the Prime Minister in the very near future, I will argue that a respect agenda must be justified by deeds and actions as well as words. If we can get the support of the Conservative party for the arguments for capital acceleration, for borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament, for the £180 million fossil fuel levy and for the Olympics consequentials—which are being claimed not just by the Scottish Government but by the Administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales—that will be a respect agenda.

Hard things are often said in politics, but the strongest thing that I heard in the election campaign was somebody saying that a cleg bite swells up, hurts for a few days and then goes back down. It looks as though Annabel Goldie is going to have the Clegg bite for some time to come.

Oh well, there is nothing that a little Tory antihistamine does not make a lot better. [Laughter.]

Enormous challenges face our country. Scotland’s unemployment rate is now higher than that of the United Kingdom—that is Labour’s jobs legacy on top of Labour’s debt legacy—and we need to deal with the consequences of Labour’s failure. Our new British Government has a job to do, but so does the First Minister: he needs to knuckle down and play his part. What plans does his Government have to deal with Labour’s legacy? Will he make economies? If so, what are they? Alternatively, does he plan to raise taxes—is that his secret plan?

I heard on the radio this morning that 90 per cent of economists believe that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are about to raise VAT to 20 per cent. I do not know whether that is a secret plan or whether it is now an open plan of the new Government but, if I were Annabel Goldie, I would be careful in talking about either public spending cuts, which seem to be the emphasis of the new Administration, or tax rises, which seem to be one of the options of the new Administration.

When the proposals that are put forward are in the interests of Scotland, I will welcome them. For example, I have already welcomed the announcement that children are no longer to be held in detention at Dungavel—that is a welcome announcement. However, in respect of the central features of economic and political policy in Scotland, I believe that the Scottish economy needs not immediate cuts in public spending but capital investment and a stimulus package to fight the recession. All of us have our political differences, but we have a shared responsibility for the future of the Scottish economy and I hope that the things that I have mentioned to Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie are supported across the chamber. For example, during the election campaign, one of the parties in the new coalition Government at Westminster said that there would be £240 million of additional spending in Scotland this year. I take it that we can now prepare John Swinney to allocate that money to investment in jobs and the Scottish economy. When we have productive policies that are in the interests of the Scottish people, the Scottish Government will support them. However, Annabel Goldie would expect the Scottish Government to advance the cause of Scotland at all times, and the things that l have listed are very much in the interests of Scotland.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2388)

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

Yesterday, a new United Kingdom Government was formed. The new Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland’s first call was to the First Minister, and the new Government has already announced that the shameful and unacceptable detention of children at the Dungavel detention centre will end. Labour had 13 years in which to do that, yet, as its term in office ended in March, we saw reports of six-year-old children being taken in their school uniforms from their Glasgow school to Dungavel. Was that not a shameful end to a Labour Government? Does the First Minister agree that, with the ending of the detention of children at Dungavel, the right policy change for Scotland is being introduced by a UK Government?

I agreed on that matter in my answer to Annabel Goldie before Tavish Scott asked the question. Of course I agree that it is a welcome change of policy. Most humane people across the political spectrum in Scotland would share that opinion. I hope that this welcome change of policy will also be reflected in the economic policies of the new Administration. Page 103 of the Liberal Democrat manifesto promises that £240 million of additional spending will be invested in the Scottish economy. When I met Vince Cable just before the election campaign, he assured me that that would be the case. Now that he is at the heart of economic management at Westminster, can we assume that it will indeed be the case?

It makes a nice change to be asked questions. I am more than happy to respond and I am sure that Mr Salmond will look forward to his meetings with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Figures suggest that more than 100 children were detained at Dungavel last year. That is a year after Labour said that it would stop the practice, which has been condemned by HM chief inspector of prisons in Scotland, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Scotland’s churches and members of Parliament on all sides. [Interruption.]

Order.

Now that the UK Government policy is changing and children are no longer to be detained behind razor wire at Dungavel—Liberal Democrats in government having made that happen—will the First Minister ensure that Scottish agencies and councils are able to work with the UK Government to educate, support and accommodate children? Is he ready to work for that fundamental change?

Yes—obviously we will, just as we tried to persuade the previous Westminster Administration that there were proper alternatives to the detention of children. Tavish Scott will get no argument from me about that. He has heard me many times as First Minister condemning the detention of children. Of course we will work to see better outcomes for families in that extreme position in Scotland. We all know of the tragedies that have unfolded as a result of the particular pressures on asylum seekers and their families.

Whether he wants to ask the questions or answer them, I refer Tavish Scott to the parts of the Liberal Democrat manifesto that would enable policy to be formed not just with a view to people in Scotland who are suffering from a degree of difficulty and oppression but across the wider economy. The people of Scotland will want to know whether there will be investment in the economy and in public services in the coming year. That is a matter that the Liberal Democrats will not be able to dodge, be it here at First Minister’s question time or elsewhere.

We will take a supplementary question from Andy Kerr.

The First Minister will be aware of the tragic murder of 16-year-old Jack Frew in East Kilbride last week. I am sure that our thoughts are with his family and friends at this time. Indeed, the whole town is devastated by his death. I give recognition to the school staff and others who have been dealing with the trauma of many young people in East Kilbride. It was a knife crime and, as a nation, we need to tackle that very subject. What more can we do as a nation, and as communities, to tackle knife crime?

Let me extend the commiserations, I hope, of the whole chamber for the tragedy that has befallen Andy Kerr’s constituent. There is huge sympathy, and it goes across parties, for families in these circumstances.

As Andy Kerr knows, a range of policies has been rolled out against knife crime. The violence reduction unit has been doing extremely good work and there have been a number of successes, but knife crime is still a major problem and a major issue in society. We express again our condolences to Andy Kerr’s constituents.

---

Economic Recovery

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the signs of economic recovery in Scotland highlighted in the latest Bank of Scotland purchasing managers’ index report. (S3F-2398)

We welcome the latest PMI report, which suggests that Scottish private sector output expanded in April for the 10th consecutive month. However, it must be recognised that recovery remains fragile and the recession continues to have devastating effects on individuals and families throughout Scotland. That is why this is not the time to withdraw fiscal stimulus measures but the time to find means of investing in Scottish economic recovery.

Under the previous Conservative Government and under the Liberal-Labour coalition in Holyrood, unemployment in Scotland was frequently higher than the United Kingdom average. What steps will the Scottish Government take to ensure that Westminster does not damage the Scottish recovery and put Scots’ jobs at risk? Will the First Minister press the new UK Government to allow accelerated capital spending, which would protect jobs in my constituency and across Scotland?

In the absence of agreement to capital acceleration and stimulus measures, the Scottish Government has made a number of announcements over recent weeks on the deployment of European funding, both from the European regional development fund and from the European social fund. That funding will protect and increase thousands of jobs in Scotland and extend training opportunities to some 80,000 people throughout the country.

Joe FitzPatrick is right that, if we want to do something significant about the state of Scotland’s economy this year so as to lead the economy into recovery, issues such as capital acceleration, borrowing powers, the fossil fuel levy and Olympics consequentials should be at the centre of what we ask for from the incoming Westminster Government. If we could do that as a Parliament united in the belief that such measures would be good for Scotland, our arguments would have more force than if we act on a party-political basis. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the four measures that I have mentioned are not the right thing for Scotland at the present moment. If they are the right thing for Scotland, surely all parties in the Parliament should be able to support them.

Of course, the First Minister fails to mention the Scottish Futures Trust, which has cost 30,000 jobs. I would be happy to work with him in getting rid of that.

Gross domestic product growth in Scotland is worse than in the rest of the UK. Projected growth in Scotland is worse than in the rest of the UK. Scotland has suffered a steeper fall in output than the rest of the UK for the first time since the second world war. The First Minister’s last economic fig leaf was his repeated claim that unemployment was lower in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. Sadly, we have found out that that is no longer the case. Does not the removal of that last economic fig leaf reveal the Salmond slump and the failure of his policies? Is it not true that the Scottish National Party manifesto promised that Scotland would be the most competitive nation in the UK? Why is that not happening?

Labour was in power in Scotland for 96 months. In 85 of those 96 months, unemployment in Scotland was higher than the UK average. I am sorry to remind Andy Kerr of that little bit of history, but nonetheless—[Interruption.] Andy Kerr may dispute the point but, in the 96 months of the Labour-Liberal Administration, unemployment was lower in Scotland than in the rest of the UK in only 11 months. That is 11 months out of 96.

I am glad that Andy Kerr has allowed me the opportunity to knock down one of his other canards. His argument about the reasons for the fall in construction employment is based on the idea that there has been a collapse in private finance initiative/public-private partnership deals. Of course, that is absolutely correct. Between 2007-08 and the following year, there was a decline of 67 per cent in the number of PFI/PPP deals in Scotland. Over the same period in England, the decline was 86 per cent. The reason for the decline, as Andy Kerr should understand, is that one of the many deficiencies of PFI/PPP as a funding mechanism is that, in a credit crunch, the PFI providers will not supply the funds.

---

Medical Records

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to better protect medical records. (S3F-2401)

We expect the highest standards of data security from everyone working in the national health service. We are continually working with health boards to improve data security. The Scottish Government set tough new rules for health boards 18 months ago that made clear that patient-identifiable data must not be stored on unencrypted memory sticks or laptops. Some £1 million was given to boards to make those changes. Medical records are the legal responsibility of the NHS boards that hold them. All members of staff should be aware of their responsibilities for data security. Storing patient-sensitive data on an unencrypted memory stick is a clear breach of those responsibilities.

The action that was taken 18 months ago has obviously proved to be insufficient. The most recent incident of which the First Minister will be aware is the discovery in a supermarket car park of a memory stick containing intimate details of patients and staff from part of NHS Forth Valley. The First Minister will be aware that that follows other incidents of boxes of medical records lying unattended in public corridors in the Southern general hospital, patient information, including X-rays, being scattered around Law hospital and documents being left lying around Strathmartine hospital, in the constituency of the Minister for Public Health and Sport in Dundee. Does the First Minister agree that effective action has not yet been taken by all parts of the NHS in Scotland? What will he do now to ensure the security of confidential patient records?

I do not agree with that. The statistics, which I have in front of me, show that these matters have improved substantially in Scotland since the changes were introduced. Jackie Baillie should know that our record is much better than that of the previous Administration. I also have comparative figures for data lost south of the border and can say that the record in Scotland is incomparably better than that south of the border. The rules were changed and tightened up 18 months ago because they were not up to scratch and changes had to be made. However, no change in the rules is immune to a breach by an individual member of staff. When that happens, an inquiry follows and the appropriate action is taken. Every available statistic shows that the rule changes that were introduced 18 months ago have resulted in substantial improvement. I know that it is not in Jackie Baillie’s nature to acknowledge such things, but she should look at the statistics.

---

Fishing Industry

6. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to support Scotland’s fishing fleet and help avoid the early closure of fisheries. (S3F-2395)

In spite of the cuts imposed by the common fisheries policy, we are working closely with the industry to help skippers to spread their fishing across the whole year as we did last year. We expect normal fishing patterns to prevail in most parts of the industry. In the white-fish sector, we are now working to give fishermen more time at sea in return for new fish conservation initiatives, to increase the likelihood of achieving a 12-month fishery.

The Scottish Government will also make strong representations to the United Kingdom Government that the common fisheries policy is broken and should be scrapped. I know that the member’s party leader has called for ending the CFP in the past. In his new position of influence and responsibility, I am sure that he will join us and give us reinforcement in making that call.

No one seriously disputes the need for reform of the CFP, and a more regional approach to fisheries management is indeed essential but, however much the First Minister or his fisheries secretary might wish it otherwise, that will not happen immediately. Scottish fishermen recognise that, so they want to know how Scottish ministers plan to address the serious problems that they are facing this year. Is the First Minister aware of the warning from Scottish producer organisations and fish processors that if fisheries have to close early because of a lack of quota or a lack of days at sea, that will spell economic disaster for the catching and processing sectors in Scotland? Will he further accept that there is a risk of displacement of vessels from more distant and viable fisheries, which will put pressure on stocks in other areas? In light of that, will he give a specific commitment today that his Government will not cut the days at sea allocated to white-fish vessels?

We are working hard with the industry, particularly on positive action to reduce the number of discards. The basic difficulty with the common fisheries policy is the fact that half the fish that are caught are discarded dead into the sea. The measures that we are taking on conservation credits are designed to allow fishermen to catch fewer fish but land more of them. That is a great part of the solution to the economic pressures that are currently being faced by the industry.

Liam McArthur should understand that, within the confines of the common fisheries policy to which his Government at Westminster is currently signed up, we are restrained in days at sea and quota allocations. I merely make this point to him: if fishing is a priority for the Liberal Democrats, why is it that nowhere in the “Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition negotiations: Agreements reached” document can be found the word “fishing” or any mention of the common fisheries policy? No doubt Liam McArthur, even retrospectively, can get on to his negotiators and have fishing established for the first time in generations as a priority of the Westminster Government.

That concludes questions to the First Minister. I remind members that we now move to members’ business and that they should depart the chamber quietly.