Plenary, 13 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, September 13, 2007

Official Report 709KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

Before I ask my question, I am sure that Parliament will want to join me in congratulating Alex McLeish and the Scotland team on their superb result last night. [Applause.] I thank the Presiding Officer for that leeway.

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-126)

Later today, I will meet representatives of Scotland's food and farming communities to discuss measures to address the twin dangers of foot-and-mouth disease and rising cereal prices. I will also have a range of other engagements.

I will give some thought to how we can acknowledge the Scottish football team's magnificent victory in Paris yesterday evening, which is part of the mood of optimism that is sweeping the nation.

Once again, I wish the First Minister well in his discussions. I thank those who came to the event in Parliament last night to promote Scottish food and, in particular, the use of local produce.

The First Minister is aware that crime and the fear of crime are major public concerns. He will also be aware of the growing mood in Scotland that double jeopardy should end. Will he support Paul Martin's plans for a member's bill and end it?

We can learn a range of lessons from recent events in the judicial system in Scotland. We should consider carefully the Lord Advocate's comments and statement later today. We should, in a carefully considered manner, draw conclusions from that and from other cases.

I certainly do not want to pre-empt what the Lord Advocate will say this afternoon. However, notwithstanding what she will say about particular cases, does the First Minister accept that some questions are for politicians and not for prosecutors? Is he at least prepared to ask his Cabinet Secretary for Justice to convene a meeting of representatives of all the political parties and Margo MacDonald to consider the issue in more detail and to seek to produce plans to end double jeopardy?

I agree with Cathy Jamieson: the matter is for political discussion, which is why the Scottish Cabinet has already discussed it. Not just one, but several potential changes to the Scottish judicial system should be considered. Every party will be consulted as we produce proposals, but every party should accept that these matters must be carefully considered. They should in no way be looked on as a knee-jerk reaction to any one case.

I am well aware of the notion that hard cases make bad law. It would be incorrect of me or anyone else to suggest a legislative change as the result of only one case. However, the Scottish National Party pledged, in its manifesto, to introduce a criminal justice bill. That surely provides an opportunity to consider some of the issues in more detail.

Is not it the case that Scotland now knows from last week's miserable performance that the SNP will not deliver on its key pledges, even though it has the time and money to spend on a change of name from Executive to Government? Is not it the case that although SNP members are happy to face the people of Scotland in a national conversation, they have turned their backs on the victims of crime? Is not it the case that the real rebranding is that the SNP cannot and will not deliver? If a person is a victim of crime, the SNP is not listening to them.

I would think that the state of crime and the judicial system in Scotland might have something to do with the Administration of the previous eight years, during which Cathy Jamieson was the Minister for Justice. The contrast between the view of the public and the view of the chamber on the start of the SNP Administration could not be more stark. For example, I saw the other day that somebody had said:

"The SNP has got off to an impressive start. People are warming to them because they seem to put Scotland's interests first, being distinctively Scottish. They appear to be making devolution work, without looking over their shoulders to Westminster."

Those are the words of Henry McLeish, a former Labour First Minister.

Is not it the case that the SNP pledged in its manifesto to introduce a criminal justice bill, which would not only deal with tougher community penalties, but would introduce a sentencing council to ensure that sentencing guidelines mean that the punishment fits the crime? Where is that bill?

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has already given a commitment to move forward on that basis. That is precisely what the Cabinet discussion was about.

I am amazed by Cathy Jamieson. In the first 120 days or so of the SNP Administration, we have fulfilled or moved forward on all 60 commitments in our 100-day manifesto. That is not a claim that the Labour Party could make after 100 days, after four years or after eight years, as it reneged on substantial parts of the promises that it made to the people of Scotland. That is of course why—even temporarily—Cathy Jamieson is sitting where she is.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-127)

I met the secretary of state on 16 August. I have no further plans to meet him at present.

The First Minister will be aware of the Scottish Conservatives' commitment to abolish double jeopardy, so that persons who have been acquitted of serious criminal charges can be tried again if new and compelling evidence comes to light. That will mean that in Scotland victims of serious crime and their families will have access to the same level of justice as is currently available in England and Wales.

I will remind the First Minister of what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr MacAskill, said during a Scottish Conservative debate on the issue in February—a debate in which, interestingly, Labour voted against the principle of abolishing double jeopardy. A conversion to the Conservative cause, however late, is always welcome.

I remind the First Minister of what Mr MacAskill said:

"The questions about how we should address the issue … are for the Administration that is in place after 3 May. However, we accept that the matter must be addressed and we will do so."—[Official Report, 22 February 2007; c 32379-80.]

Will the First Minister honour that commitment?

Yes. That is what the Cabinet discussion was about on Tuesday.

Annabel Goldie will also be aware, owing to her substantial knowledge of these matters, that there are significant differences between the Scottish judicial system and other judicial systems—one is that there is no general right of the Crown to appeal in certain cases, which exists in many other jurisdictions. A number of matters should be examined in relation to keeping people in Scotland safe from harm and to ensuring that our judicial system works effectively. I am sure that Annabel Goldie will agree that it is best that those matters be considered carefully so that we get exactly the right improvements, rather than reacting to one or two individual cases.

I accept the premise that such matters must not be entered into lightly, but this is almost a stand-alone issue. I am sure that the First Minister must be as frustrated as I am that, four years after the law was strengthened in England and Wales, victims and their families in Scotland still do not have the same opportunity for justice, because of the neglect of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. To ensure that the necessary change is made as swiftly as possible—the programme for government is silent on the matter—will the First Minister consider either an early amendment to existing legislation or a new short bill that would be restricted to the issue?

We should approach the matter in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner. I am certainly not going to disagree with Annabel Goldie about the remarkable turnaround in the attitude of the Labour Party—it is an astonishing conversion. Nonetheless, we should consider the situation carefully. If Annabel Goldie looks at what I have said on the record, she will find that she should take yes for an answer on such matters.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-128)

The Cabinet will discuss a range of issues of importance to the Scottish people.

On health, will the First Minister's target of an 18-week waiting time apply to audiology services?

The commitment will apply to audiology services. This Government is working through that commitment in our programme. There is a huge amount of patient and public support for the approach of the new SNP Government to matters that were long neglected by the previous Administration.

Here we go again—another week and more confusion over the SNP's plans. The First Minister says yes to audiology today, but in a written answer last week, his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said no. She confirmed that audiology services do not fall within the 18-week target of the Scottish Government. Has the First Minister just made up a policy? Will that fresh guarantee run to other services such as chiropody and physiotherapy? What should we believe—his health minister's written answer to Parliament last week or his top-of-the-head reply today? Is he making it up as he goes along?

Nicol Stephen should differentiate between the definitions under the Administration of which he was part and what we are working to do now. It is the case that audiology was not included in any guarantees on waiting times in the past; the difference between the current and previous Administrations is that we are working to bring such services into the definition in the future.

The First Minister will be aware that the chairman of ITV has written to members today about his report to the City, which proposes reductions in regional news broadcasting. Effectively, that would mean the abolition of Border Television and its local news coverage. It is an excellent service and has been since it was set up and provides outstanding local news coverage to south-west Scotland and north-west England. Will the First Minister work with his Westminster colleagues to make representations to the Office of Communications that Border Television local news coverage should be protected and that it should not come from Newcastle or Glasgow?

I will certainly work with all colleagues to protect news services in Scotland. When we established the Scottish Broadcasting Commission under the chairmanship of Blair Jenkins recently, much of the comment about why such a commission was necessary was directed to services that are provided by the BBC. In fact, as Jeremy Purvis rightly identified, there are also threats and dangers to services in the commercial sector. I encourage him to make representations—rather than just joining with Westminster colleagues—to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, which will be hugely influential in addressing a major concern that runs right through Scotland at present.

I ask the First Minister whether he shares my concerns about the report from the Scottish Government on the implementation of the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002. How does the First Minister intend to respond to that report? Given his commitment to me during his programme for government statement, will he now tell Parliament in what ways he will amend provisions in relation to sexual history?

As Margaret Curran knows, the Scottish Law Commission report is awaited on our legislative programme and on the amendments that we are going to make to the legislation relating to rape and sexual offences. I share entirely the concerns that she has noted, and I hope that the legislation—which is envisaged for this parliamentary session—will go a substantial way towards addressing those very real concerns, which affect women across Scotland.

---

Quangos

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government proposes to take to review the number of quangos. (S3F-129)

That matter is under review at the present moment. We inherited a situation of having nine Government departments and 160 quangos. As John Wilson knows, we have already taken action to reduce the number of Government departments from nine to six. As the review proceeds, we will certainly also take action to reduce the number of quangos in Scotland. We have too many quangos and we should have fewer.

Does the First Minister agree that greater transparency is required in the making of appointments to public bodies? According to research that was undertaken in 2005, 60 per cent of those who were appointed and who declared a political allegiance did so to one particular political party in Scotland. Does the First Minister agree that an examination is needed into the number of appointments that are made to quangos?

John Wilson is being quite coy, but the figure of 60 per cent related to the number of people who declared allegiance to the Labour Party. That is a remarkable fact. My comment has upset Labour members, but facts are chiels that winna ding, and 60 per cent seems to be a very high percentage. In fairness, I should point out that the number of people in quangos who identify themselves with a political party is low when compared with the total number. It should also be said that many people on quangos and other bodies contribute selflessly to public service.

However, John Wilson raises a fair point. I will ask officials to investigate and I will bring comments on the matter back to Parliament.

I am rather confused by Mr Salmond's response. His colleague Richard Lochhead seems to think that quangos are rather a good thing. In June, he said that making Quality Meat Scotland a quango would

"give increased leadership, not just to the benefit of the livestock sector, but the food industry as a whole."

Does Mr Salmond agree that Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency give strong leadership on the environment, and that SNH and SEPA should be maintained as separate bodies? If quango status is good enough for red meat, surely it is good enough for the environment. Is he going to go ahead with their merger, as stated in his manifesto? Yes or no?

If Rhona Brankin had been paying attention to announcements that have been made over the past few days—in the Government's programme and elsewhere—she would know that we are already drawing things together into a single rural service, so that people who use the quangos and are supervised by them will not have the miasma of confusion that they complain about at present. On the issue that Rhona Brankin mentioned, and on other issues, she really should consult her constituents more widely, who find being supervised and examined by several bodies—at the same time and on the same issue—hugely confusing. She will find that rural Scotland will welcome the idea of a single entry point and a single service. That idea has already been introduced by this Administration.

I was intrigued when the First Minister mentioned the existence of "160 quangos", because in a speech on 17 May he referred to 152. That is perhaps one of the hidden aspects of the first 100 days of the new Administration.

More seriously, I want to ask the First Minister whether he has a target for how many quangos he seeks to cut. A major campaign is under way on the challenge of providing affordable housing, so can the First Minister clarify the position of Communities Scotland and the timescale for any changes that may be made?

We have discovered that there were hidden quangos as well as hidden waiting lists under the previous Administration. However, to answer Mr Brown's question more specifically, apparently the Scottish definition of quango includes not only non-departmental public bodies but executive agencies. That is the reason for the difference between the two numbers. However, whether the number is 152 or even more, as it is now, I am sure that Robert Brown will agree that there are too many. The number has increased but it ought to be diminished.

Given that ministers in all departments are keen to talk about decluttering the landscape, can the First Minister confirm that in four years' time there will be fewer quangos, that they will employ fewer people and that they will control a smaller budget than they control today?

Everything we do in this area is aimed at decluttering the landscape of quangos and non-departmental public bodies in Scotland. I am certain that Derek Brownlee will see substantial progress towards that end. That is not to diminish the role of the public sector or public servants, but it is an unassailable law of administration that if one body regulates an issue we are likely to get better results than from many bodies trying to regulate the same issue, especially when they spend a good deal of time consulting one another.

---

Primary School Class Sizes

To ask the First Minister what the estimated revenue and capital costs are for implementing primary 1 to primary 3 class sizes of 18 across the country by 2011. (S3F-146)

As the member knows, we are holding discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other interested parties about the pace and scale of the delivery that is needed to meet our primary 1 to primary 3 commitments.

I am bemused by that answer. Regardless of whether the First Minister is holding discussions, he needs to know what the revenue and capital costs of the policy are. As we heard this morning, it is clear that ministers are trying to line up a scapegoat for their failure, in the form of local authorities. How many teachers will be required to deliver the policy and to provide a fully qualified teacher for every nursery child in Scotland, as both the First Minister and Fiona Hyslop have promised? Does he stand by those pledges, and will both be delivered by 2011?

There are now more teachers and training places in Scotland, thanks to the announcements that the Administration has made. I had the good fortune to watch this morning's debate and found that there had been a remarkable transformation in the Labour Party's attitude. Hugh Henry may remember that there was a time when we were told that the maximum class size in key subjects in secondary 1 and secondary 2 would be 20. We were then told that the figure was an average. This week, the party's new leader in waiting said that class sizes do not really matter, after all. Before the Labour Party attacks the Scottish National Party, perhaps it will clarify whether it agrees with us, the Educational Institute of Scotland, educational professionals and the teachers and parents of Scotland that smaller class sizes are hugely important to the future of Scotland.

What impact will the policy of reducing class sizes in primary 1 to primary 3 have on classroom assistant numbers?

The matters affecting the policy and its implementation are being discussed with COSLA and the universities at present. Hugh O'Donnell should agree with the Administration that the increase in the number of teachers that we have already announced, the aim and objective that we have set out and the working through of our priorities are moves forward for Scottish education. Those who argue that smaller class sizes do not really matter are heavily isolated—perhaps not inside the chamber in certain political parties, but substantially so outside the chamber in the real world, where people know the value of smaller class sizes for the future of Scotland.

In her intervention during my speech in this morning's debate, Maureen Watt suggested that all parents want their children to be educated at their local schools. Is abolition of parental choice SNP policy, or is it an unintended consequence of its policy on class sizes?

I heard Maureen Watt's excellent response to the member's question. She pointed out that, given the overwhelming support of parents and teachers for the policy of having smaller class sizes, it is likely that parents will choose the schools that achieve that objective first.

The First Minister pledged to match the previous Administration brick for brick, by building 100 new schools by 2009. Will the classrooms for primary 1 to primary 3 in those schools have capacity for only 18 pupils?

Councils determine those matters. However, in terms of matching the commitment brick for brick, I saw the exchanges in the education debate this morning and I know that that is already happening in new school developments in West Lothian and elsewhere. So, instead of the negativity in this chamber towards the substantial efforts that the new Administration has already made in addressing these matters, members should welcome not just the 300 extra teachers and the 250 additional training places, but the £40 million allocation—additional money this year—that has allowed councils around Scotland to fulfil their commitments to school repair and school building.

I wonder whether the First Minister will take advice from an independent MSP. We can expect Labour members to attack everything that his Government says in policy terms. However, the future leader of the Labour Party got it right when she said that the Government should not stick itself in a corner on class sizes, but should consider areas of deprivation, in which pupils need to be in classes that are as small as possible, which might come out as being less than 18. However, in other areas, particularly Edinburgh, I know well that if the Government told parents that their children would have to be moved from popular schools because there were to be only 18 pupils in certain classes, they would sincerely disagree with that, and they would be right to do so.

I have a long history of listening to advice from Margo MacDonald. I do not always take it, but I always listen to it.

On the question of areas of deprivation, as Margo MacDonald will know, they have already been prioritised in the announcements that have been made. They are very much part of the priority that we are giving to our ambition to have smaller class sizes.

On the difference between the view here and the view outwith the chamber, I remind members that the Educational Institute of Scotland, whose contribution to the recent election campaign was a drive on smaller class sizes, says that

"smaller class sizes are essential in the changing education system if we are adequately to equip our youngsters for the future."

I had believed and hoped that that ambition was common throughout Parliament. However, while watching this morning's education debate, I began to believe that a number of politicians in this chamber do not share that ambition and do not regard smaller class sizes as being important. I think that they are, to use another phrase from Henry McLeish this week, "out of touch" with the movement forward in Scottish society.

---

Flooding

To ask the First Minister what action Scottish ministers will take to deal with the increased risk of flooding across Scotland. (S3F-136)

We recognise that Scotland needs to take a more sustainable approach to flood risk management in order to tackle the increased risk of flooding associated with climate change. That will be addressed by the flooding bill that I announced in the programme for government on 5 September. Of course, Mike Rumbles will have noticed that on Monday of this week the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment held Scotland's first flooding summit to discuss with stakeholders what more needs to be done.

Will the First Minister propose in the new bill a new agency for flooding? If that is to be the case, will it be the 161st quango?

We will introduce the bill to Parliament. I will not pre-announce the announcements in the bill. However, I hope that all members—lo, even unto Mike Rumbles—will recognise that the matter needs to be addressed, that it was not addressed in the past and that this Administration is doing something about it.

Will the minister consider revisiting the Belwin scheme? The scheme provides emergency funding to local authorities in the event of flooding, for example, but does not extend to housing associations, which can leave them vulnerable in the event of a wholesale stock transfer, as happened in the Borders several years ago. Will the First Minister re-examine the scheme in light of such circumstances?

I know that that issue was raised with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment at the meeting on Monday. It will be examined and will certainly be part of the discussions surrounding the proposed flooding bill.

The First Minister will be aware from the excellent conference on flooding in Perth on Monday, to which the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment invited me—[Interruption.] The First Minister will be aware of the massive potential for flooding throughout Scotland and the misery that flooding causes. I welcome the proposed legislation on flooding, but in the light of the hard choices that are to be made in the spending review, will the First Minister assure Parliament that sufficient funds will be made available to address the problems of river and coastal flooding, which become more apparent every day?

We cannot address the seriousness of the issue without additional funds being provided.

I noticed that John Scott was getting a less than enthusiastic response from Liberal members when he started asking his question. Surely the need to tackle flooding is something that all members should agree on. John Scott's attendance at, and contribution to, the flooding summit last Monday is not a matter for catcalls; it is exactly the sort of thing that responsible politicians of all parties should be doing if we are to address the issue together.