Plenary, 13 Nov 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, November 13, 2008

Official Report 754KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1165)

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

The First Minister's Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning was in my constituency yesterday to open a beautiful new primary school. I believe that she is opening four schools in a fortnight, and every single one of them—like Sanderson's Wynd primary school in Tranent—was commissioned, planned, funded and started by Labour—[Interruption.]

Order.

What is Ms Hyslop going to do when she runs out of Labour schools to open? What are our construction workers going to do when they run out of Labour schools to build? We have yet to see a single school project initiated on this First Minister's watch. When will his education secretary be able to open a school that has been commissioned, planned and built by the Scottish National Party?

I do not know whether Iain Gray was conscious of the fact, but his claim about the achievements of the previous Administration—such as they were—caused some disconcertion in the Liberal ranks, who felt that they should share in the glory.

Of course, the truth is that the schools are not Labour schools or Labour-Liberal schools; they are the people's schools. [Interruption.]

Order.

As are the 250 that will be built and refurbished in the term of this Administration. One thing was wrong with Iain Gray's suggestions: it is true that the schools that the cabinet secretary opened—one would have thought that Iain Gray would be grateful that she opened them—were planned under the previous Administration, but it is certainly not true that they were paid for under the previous Administration. They are public-private partnership and private finance initiative schools and the people will be paying for them for the next 20 or 30 years.

The First Minister should check his facts: the school that his education secretary opened yesterday—just like the other one in Tranent that he opened last year—was not a PPP or PFI school and it was certainly planned and built by Labour.

Last Thursday, the First Minister was in Glenrothes saying, "Yes we can," and the people of Glenrothes said to him, "Oh no you won't." When it comes to building schools, today he is trying to say, "Yes we are," but parents, teachers and councils are saying, "No you are not." The people know who has built their schools.

The problem now is this Government and its unworkable Scottish Futures Trust. The Government should listen to Glasgow City Council, which has said that, since last year's election, no new schools have been commissioned anywhere in Scotland. Glasgow had intended to consult on the next phase of its primary school investments using the SNP's preferred Scottish Futures Trust. Unfortunately, it says that the Scottish Futures Trust has proved to be "an embarrassing let-down". Will the First Minister admit again this week that he has got it wrong, ditch the Scottish Futures Trust and allow Scottish councils to start building schools?

I will give Iain Gray a few facts to interrupt his assertions. Since May 2007, when the Scottish people threw out the Labour—or Labour-Liberal—Administration, 11 projects have been signed off and about 55 schools have been planned, which involves 30,000 pupils and a combined capital value of £1 billion. Those schools are coming forward. Where will they be? In Falkirk, Perth and Kinross, West Dunbartonshire, East Dunbartonshire, West Lothian, Dumfries and Galloway, and of course—as of a few days ago—Inverclyde. Schools are in the pipeline in Moray, the Western Isles and Orkney.

I welcome Iain Gray's apparent conversion away from the PFI and PPP. The major difference with the schools that are being signed off and planned under this Administration is that a growing number of non-profit-distributing models are being used. That provides good value for the people and new buildings for pupils. The Government is prepared to face up to its financial responsibilities, instead of leaving them to future generations.

The trouble with the pipeline of schools that the First Minister describes is that it stretches back to before May 2007 to the previous Administration. The 30,000 pupils will have new classrooms in new schools that Labour set in motion.

Of those who are trying to build schools, let us consider North Lanarkshire Council. Previously, the council built 26 schools. It would like to build more. The plea of the council's education convener to the Government is:

"I would ask the Scottish Government to reconsider their plans for the Scottish Futures Trust. If they cannot find a way to make it work quickly, I would urge them to return to other funding mechanisms"—

yes—

"such as PPP. The alternative is that we continue to teach pupils in buildings which are no longer fit for purpose. I do not find this acceptable".

None of us finds that acceptable. I ask the First Minister again: in the interests of Scotland's schoolchildren, will he stop messing with his Futures Trust and start building schools?

It is clear that Councillor Jim Fletcher of East Renfrewshire Council does not share Iain Gray's views, as the councillor has accepted an appointment to the board of the Scottish Futures Trust. In case members were wondering, he is a Labour councillor. He has accepted that appointment because he realises—as do the vast majority of people in Scotland—that the PFI/PPP system of school building is redundant, because it has placed huge obligations on future generations and because the Treasury has decided that all such arrangements must be on the balance sheet as of next April. Perhaps Iain Gray's conversion away from PFI/PPP has less to do with his own analysis of the situation and much to do with further orders from London, where people seem to have changed their minds.

To tell the truth, I have little interest in the First Minister's putting one councillor on a board. I am interested in the First Minister's lack of ability to put our schoolchildren in new classrooms.

As for London, let us talk about it. The newest parliamentarian in Britain, Lindsay Roy, is here today. He has been the MP for Glenrothes for only one week, yet he has already seen—[Interruption.]

Has he lost his way?

Order.

In one week, Lindsay Roy has already seen Labour in Westminster give the go-ahead for the rebuilding of 1,500 primary schools in England and he has seen councils in England being given £1.75 billion of additional support to make that happen. That is real money to build real schools, which will provide better conditions for hundreds of thousands of pupils and jobs for tens of thousands of construction workers when those jobs are needed most. Why cannot Scotland have some of that? The First Minister has had 18 months. He already has Scotland's share of that money. When do we get our schools and our jobs?

I note Iain Gray's conversion to telling the truth—that was a nice introduction to his question.

I welcome Lindsay Roy to the gallery. Perhaps we should swear him in to this Parliament—and, just for completeness, invite John Mason, the new MP for Glasgow East, to attend.

Iain Gray does not like Labour councillors who take a proper, practical and constructive view of the Scottish Futures Trust, and he does not want to talk about London, so I will try him with some statistics. He will find that the 250 new and refurbished schools that will be built within the term of this Administration is more than the figure that he cites for the United Kingdom school-building programme. Iain Gray's conversion to ploughing his own furrow is welcome, because he will not be overshadowed by the new Secretary of State for Scotland, Jim Murphy, who seems to be the new leader of the Labour Party in Scotland.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1166)

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

Yesterday, official figures revealed that 126,000 Scots are out of work. The much respected Fraser of Allander institute has predicted that, at worst, a further 117,000 jobs could be lost, and that there will be long-term negative effects on many of our businesses. Already, countless families in Scotland are feeling the pain of recession and fearing for their futures. Fewer people will be in work, more jobs will be lost and tax revenues will fall.

That harsh reality impacts on Scottish Government policy. Does the First Minister accept that his Government's cosy assumptions about a local income tax are now smashed to pieces? Is it not time to ditch that discredited, unmanageable and now economically flawed tax on work?

First, I acknowledge the severe problems with the economic downturn. We had a full debate on that yesterday, and I was pleased that the Parliament supported the constructive approach in the SNP Administration's six-point plan, under which we are doing what is within our powers to combat the forces of the economic downturn.

Annabel Goldie is quite right that economic circumstances change forecasts. I point out to her as gently as I can that forecasts on house building and expected council tax revenue have also changed. However, underlying the question of taxation is a question about parity and fairness. We all accept that no tax anywhere and at any time is popular, because people do not like to pay tax, but if we have to pay tax and fund services—as we all do—are we not better paying a fair tax that is based on the ability to pay as opposed to an iniquitous and hated tax, such as the council tax?

The First Minister revels in creating the illusion that he is an economics guru, or Scotland's very own financial prophet—the Brahan seer of Buchan. Earlier this year, he said:

"The Scottish banks are among the most stable financial institutions in the world."

If only.

What we need now is real help in tough times. The Scottish Conservatives have laid out how we can bring such help to every council tax payer in Scotland. In these unprecedented times, is the First Minister arguing that a council tax freeze is enough? Is he seriously ruling out any cut in council tax for the duration of this parliamentary session?

We should all accept that there are severe difficulties in the financial sector, and, incidentally, that some of its practices will have to change substantially in the new environment. However, I deprecate people who regard the problem as particularly affecting the Scottish financial sector, because that is simply untrue, for two reasons. First, Scotland has outstanding financial institutions that are pursuing their business through the economic downturn and the financial crisis, and they are doing so exceptionally well. Secondly, the difficulties that are affecting the clearing banks have affected banks throughout the world. The situation is not specific to any one bank, and it certainly is not specific to Scotland.

As to whether the council tax freeze is enough, no, it is probably not enough, but at least it is a good start for the people of Scotland. It is a good start because council tax increased by 40 per cent under the Conservative party from 1992 and increased by another 60 per cent under the Labour Party from 1997. One reason why the council tax is hated is that it is unfair; another reason is that, between the Labour and Conservative parties, it doubled in the space of very few years. Is the council tax freeze enough? No, but it is a lot better than the record of the Labour and Conservative parties.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1167)

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

In response to the damning child protection inspection in Aberdeen, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said this morning that she was

"reassured that considerable efforts are being made and things are moving in the right direction."

The recovery action plan that is being driven by the inspectors could take four months to produce, and the follow-up inspection will wait for a year. How can that possibly be urgent enough when children in Aberdeen face living in high-risk situations with drug-abusing parents and without adequate support or protection, and with services that do not intervene quickly enough in cases involving parental substance abuse and neglect? None of that is acceptable, is it?

No, it is not acceptable. Yesterday, I saw the exchanges in the House of Commons on the very distressing case in Haringey, but I did not think that they were particularly edifying, so let us try to consider such serious matters in the way in which they should be considered.

In Scotland, we benefit from having an extraordinarily rigorous system of inspection through Her Majesty's inspectors of child protection services. There have been 24 such inspections over the past two years. It should be said that some councils' performance has been exemplary. The performance of councils in West Lothian, Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire, the Scottish Borders and North Lanarkshire has been extremely good. However, the performance of some councils—the latest example is Aberdeen City Council—has been totally and utterly unacceptable. In recent times, the only report that is comparable to the one that Aberdeen City Council has received is the one that Midlothian Council received towards the beginning of last year.

I make that point because, as a result of the inspection system and the identification of the problems, it has been possible to improve substantially the situation in Midlothian, and the same will happen in Aberdeen. It is not just that that will happen: because of our system, action has been taken since early indications of the report emerged in June. It has not been a case of waiting around for the report to be published; effective action has already been taken. I hope that, just as happened in Midlothian, there will be a substantial improvement in the ability of the social work department to fulfil its duties to the most vulnerable sections of the community—children who are at risk and people who need child protection.

I agree with the First Minister that the situation is totally unacceptable. Children in Aberdeen are at risk, so when he returns to the north-east, as I am sure he will this weekend, will he meet the political leaders of Aberdeen? Yesterday, in response to Aberdeen City Council's lack of Government funding, they published 317 pages of new council cuts, including more cuts to children's services. Will he tell them that they must deliver a first-class child protection service? This morning in Aberdeen, there is a child in a flat who has drug-abusing parents. The council needs to act and so does the First Minister's Government. Will he today promise more resources to help that child?

I do not know whether Tavish Scott is aware of this, but we have agreed in principle—exceptionally, because of the council's historical funding problems, which stretch back over many years—to allow the council to capitalise a significant element of its expected revenue costs, including those from equal pay compensation payments. That proposal is subject to the receipt of a detailed business case. We have been in touch with the council about the proposal over the past few weeks. Obviously, we have to get Treasury permission, but the indications are that, subject to a detailed business case being received, that can happen in time for the council to make its final decision on its revenue budget on 17 December.

Meetings have been taking place since June on the expected report, involving all of the authorities that are responsible for child protection. While no one could claim that the situation in the social work department as it affects child protection is perfect—we will wait for the re-assessment to see what improvement has been made—seven extra full-time social workers have been employed over the past few months, and initiatives have been taken to ensure that children are assessed by new staff in the maternity unit, to allow early intervention to take place. Significant staffing improvements have been made over the past few months. I stress once again that it was not a question of waiting for the report to be published. Luckily, because of our robust inspection system in Scotland, for which we should be grateful, we intervened early and took action to ensure that the situation improved now, as opposed to waiting until the report was published.

---

HBOS

To ask the First Minister what further discussion the Scottish Government has had about the proposed merger of HBOS and Lloyds TSB and the impact that this will have on jobs. (S3F-1173)

I most recently met Lloyds TSB on Tuesday. I reaffirmed that the Scottish Government would continue to work closely with Lloyds TSB, and anyone else with alternative proposals, to ensure an outcome that minimises potential costs for Scottish workers, customers and the wider economy.

Is the First Minister aware that within minutes of the United Kingdom Government being informed confidentially of the Bank of China's interest in bidding for HBOS, that information appeared in the blog of Robert Peston of the BBC? That is hardly the proper way to do business. Given the apparent attempts by the UK Government to sabotage any possible alternative to the Lloyds TSB bid for HBOS, will the First Minister remind the Prime Minister of his promise to treat any rival bid for HBOS on a level playing field with Lloyds TSB? Will he ask the Prime Minister to keep a promise for once?

First, I emphasise, as I have done before, that I make no criticism of Lloyds TSB, which is, quite properly, pursuing its commercial objectives. It also is a bank with a fine record in Scotland, both in banking and in insurance. I do not know the detail of the situation that Alex Neil described, but I find it difficult to reconcile what I interpret as clear political hostility to any alternative but the merger with the public pronouncements of a level playing field. The difficulty is this: with the best will in the world, a merger between two UK-based domestic clearing banks, involving synergies of £1.5 billion, will inevitably, even with the best of motives, result in substantial job losses and a diminution of competition.

While I support the means to stabilise the financial sector, many people will think it ironic, to say the least, that while substantial quantities of public money can be inputted to stabilise the financial sector, the outcome may well be a reduction in employment of the order of tens of thousands of jobs and a reduction in competition that will affect families and businesses throughout the country. Under those terms, I wish that the Prime Minister and the chancellor would live up to their public declarations of a level playing field for all options for the future of HBOS.

Yet again we have heard more nonsense from Alex Neil, who seems to see a conspiracy around every corner.

In the First Minister's discussions with Lloyds TSB, did he ask it—as I have previously asked him to do—to ensure that there is no offshoring of Scottish jobs? He said that his first priority is to protect jobs in Scotland. One way to do that is to ensure that Lloyds TSB does not send those jobs to India. As the First Minister is well aware, Lloyds TSB's bid is the only bid on the table. I hope that he is putting his full effort behind ensuring that the merger goes ahead to protect the jobs that are so necessary here in Scotland.

For a number of reasons, people will find David Whitton's point rather breathtaking. It is true, as I understand it, that it has been the business practice of Lloyds TSB to offshore a number of back-office jobs. That has not been the practice, to the same extent, in HBOS. If Mr Whitton is looking for guarantees, would it not be better for him to turn to the major shareholder in both banks—which happens to be Her Majesty's Government—and ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister whether, in all their other observations on the banking situation, they have mentioned to either bank the question of the offshoring of banking jobs?

---

Efficiency Savings (First Minister's Portfolio)

To ask the First Minister for what reasons his own portfolio has not achieved the 2 per cent efficiency savings asked of all directorates, including those responsible for health and education. (S3F-1183)

As the minister who was responsible for introducing the 2005 to 2008 efficient government initiative to which he refers, Mr Kerr should be aware that his Administration did not set a 2 per cent target for any parts of government. Indeed, only since the current Administration launched the 2008 to 2011 efficient government programme have all ministerial portfolios been set a clear, unambiguous target of 2 per cent. Mr Kerr will appreciate that, as we have just passed the midpoint of the first year of the new programme, it is too early to report on whether any portfolio has reached its 2 per cent target for the year 2008-09. Nevertheless, the signs are good.

I am not sure that I concur with the view that the signs are good. The First Minister previously mentioned the economic downturn. From all the information that is available to me, it appears that his Government's efficiencies are fast becoming cuts in services and in jobs, especially in local government. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities understands that and Mr Swinney understands it, too. The Prime Minister has risen to the challenge of the new economic environment. Will the First Minister do likewise and stop the job cuts?

Andy Kerr seems to have forgotten that the Labour Party's argument against our efficiencies in government—which came from the former leader—was that they were too small. In the famous hungry caterpillar speech, Wendy Alexander said that our efficiency savings were too small: the record speaks for itself. Also, the difference between our efficiency savings and the previous Administration's efficiency savings is that Government departments are getting to keep and reinvest their efficiency savings under Mr Swinney's wise tutelage.

I am not surprised that Andy Kerr wandered off his initial question. When I saw it in the Business Bulletin, I decided to make some detailed investigations into the period when he was the Minister for Finance and Public Services and Jack McConnell was the First Minister. I found that the entire explanation for a £7 million underhit in efficiency savings was that BBC Alba, instead of being launched in 2007-08—the year in which Andy Kerr thought that it was going to be launched—was launched only in September this year. I put it to Andy Kerr that it is difficult for any department or for BBC Alba to make efficiency savings before it starts production.

---

Domestic Abuse Against Men

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government intends to take following the publication of figures showing that domestic abuse against men has increased by 110 per cent since 1999. (S3F-1176)

The Scottish Government recognises that domestic abuse is always wrong, regardless of gender. The Government is committed to tackling domestic abuse and ensuring that all those who are affected by it are given the support that they need and that those who perpetrate it are dealt with effectively.

The Scottish Government's approach to tackling domestic abuse is based on evidence that has been gathered over several decades in Scotland, in the rest of the UK and internationally, which tells us that women are disproportionately affected by domestic abuse, both in its severity and in its sustained nature. That is why we target resources and work with partners to develop services as we do.

Although it acknowledges the fact that the majority of domestic abuse cases involve male abuse of females, Home Office and British crime survey research has repeatedly found that men are much less likely to report violent domestic abuse. Given that the Welsh Assembly now funds a project that provides services that are appropriate for men and same-sex couples, will the Government ensure that all the victims of violent domestic abuse and the children who witness it are given the same support?

Yes, the support should be given regardless of gender. I am glad that Mary Scanlon acknowledged in her introduction that the evidence base shows that the vast majority of domestic violence cases—which are deplorable whoever they affect—affect women. Women are victims in the vast majority of such cases. However, we will keep the situation under review. Mary Scanlon will be interested to know that the new statistics for 2007-08 are due for publication on Tuesday 25 November, after which she may want to return to the issue.

We started late, so I will take a brief supplementary from Ian McKee.

Will the First Minister broaden his comments to include elder abuse, which is an underreported and serious social problem?

The Scottish Government recognises that elder abuse is a sad reality that is too often hidden. However, the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007, which became law on 29 October, just a few weeks ago, puts in place modern and strengthened measures to afford greater protection to those adults in Scotland who are most at risk of harm.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—