Plenary, 14 Jun 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, June 14, 2007

Official Report 789KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

Perhaps appropriately, given the question I have to ask, I regret the fact that I am not at an engagement this morning: I refer to the funeral of Lord Ewing. He was one of the leaders of the constitutional convention, and a decent and honest man, who played a part in creating this institution. I wish that I was at his funeral, but I am sure that all members will join me in sending condolences. [Applause.]

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-50)

I join Jack McConnell in paying tribute to the late Harry Ewing. In addition to what Jack McConnell said, I can tell him that Harry Ewing was a doughty and formidable opponent in debate, but always fair minded and always constructive. Across the political spectrum, we will miss him very much indeed.

I have a number of engagements planned, including picking up the phone to the head of the Glasgow 2014 bid team, following the Commonwealth games committee's validation of the bid as "truly impressive". As Jack McConnell knows more than anyone, there is still a long way to go in the process, but I think that all in the chamber should welcome the technical excellence of the Glasgow bid, and pay tribute to everybody connected with it.

I strongly endorse those comments.

There is a report today from the investigation into the Kerelaw secure unit in Ayrshire. Many of the young people who went through that secure unit will have joined those not in education, employment or training. Is the reduction in the number of young people not in education, employment or training still a national priority for the Scottish Government?

Indeed it is a national priority for the Scottish Government. As the debate in the chamber last week indicated, it is a key priority for this Administration. We may differ from Jack McConnell on how to bring about that reduction, but let there be no doubt—and I think this crosses the parties in the chamber—that it is a key priority in politics in Scotland.

I welcome that assurance. Young people who are in that position need skills.

Scottish employment reached another record level yesterday, and Scottish Enterprise has today identified skills as a national priority for our people and for our economy. My party was committed to 50,000 modern apprenticeships and a target for degree or level 4 qualifications for the Scottish population. Will the First Minister commit to a target for degree-level qualifications? Specifically, will he commit to a target for modern apprenticeships?

As we indicated in that debate last week, within our first 100 days in office we will introduce our skills strategy for Scotland.

The skills strategy is extremely important, as indeed is access to education. As the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning indicated yesterday, we should be aware that over the past three to four years, the participation index of our youngsters going to university has been falling for the first time in recorded educational history in Scotland. That is why we addressed the issue in the decision we took yesterday to abolish back-end fees in Scottish universities.

I offer Jack McConnell this information, which I believe will be announced today by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills—some areas of employment are reserved issues, on which we co-operate with the Government in London. Last week, I agreed to the appointment of the chairman of the commission for employment and skills; I am not at liberty to say who it is, but it is somebody of high character and of great experience. That will be announced today as an indication of areas in which this Government is determined to co-operate with the Government in London.

I will take that as a no. There are no targets for modern apprenticeships and there are no targets for degree-level qualifications. It is a matter of serious regret that the first action of the new Government has been not to help those who do not have degrees, but to help those who have them and have already found work.

People who are not in education, employment or training often face homelessness, too. In 2003, the Parliament committed to the target of ending homelessness by 2012. Will the First Minister commit to that target here today? If so, will he explain why his first act in housing policy will be to help those who can already afford to buy a home by giving them a £2,000 grant, which will inflate housing prices, rather than to build more affordable homes, which would help those who are not in education, employment or training?

Yes, I can commit to that target, and we will outline that in the housing debate next week.

There is a substantial difficulty with Jack McConnell's position. I agree that we have to do far more on skills training for all our youngsters. The fall in the number of children who go to university, as shown in the age participation index, is a real problem in Scottish society. I agree that we have to do far more on social housing and that is exactly what the Administration intends to do. If we had a former First Minister's question time, the question would be, "Why didn't he do any of that in the past six years?"

The First Minister misses the—

Answer.

This is First Minister's question time. I am happy to ask the questions and demand answers.

As Mr Salmond said, this is about decisions. It is about young people who are not in education, employment or training being a national priority and it is about skills being a national priority. It is not about splitting skills from economic development and it is certainly not about helping those who are already in work and have degrees. It is about tackling homelessness and building affordable homes. It is not about inflating house prices by giving grants to those who can already afford to buy houses.

In those and other areas, the First Minister is concentrating on short-term bribes rather than long-term strategies for Scotland. Will the First Minister stop governing for the SNP and start governing for Scotland? When will he announce to the Parliament his strategy for tackling young people who are not in education, employment or training and giving them a better chance in life?

I have heard of people not taking no for an answer, but it is extraordinary not to take yes for an answer to the question on housing targets. To describe the abolition of fees and barriers to universities in Scotland as a short-term bribe is foolish. Politicians who took advantage of free education, such as me and Jack McConnell, should be careful about pulling up the ladder from the next generations.

Where we disagree is on the best way in which to bring forward a skills strategy. As Jack McConnell has said in a number of debates, the Labour Party believes in national skills academies. That is the Labour Party's policy. We believe that we are fortunate in Scotland in that our college system already addresses, and is acceptable and responsive to, employers' needs.

Jack McConnell has told me on a number of occasions to pay attention to the Parliament and its verdicts. I remind him that when he put his policy to the Parliament last week he was defeated by 64 votes to 63; I am paying attention to the Parliament. Another person who has been telling me to do that is Tavish Scott. Unfortunately, he did not turn up last week to tell me to pay attention to the Parliament.

As Kerelaw school has been mentioned, I call the constituency member involved, Irene Oldfather.

Is the First Minister aware that provisional placing on the disqualified from working with children list, which happened to a number of former Kerelaw staff, does not disqualify a person per se from working in a child care position? Does the First Minister agree that, in the interests both of protecting children and of staff who have been placed on the list without a criminal conviction, it is essential that referral cases from provisional to permanent status are dealt with as quickly as possible? When the full report is published, will he ensure that speedy action is taken on the matter?

That is an important question. For the benefit of those in the chamber, I point out that Jack McConnell, as First Minister, made a public apology in the Parliament to the adult survivors of abuse that was committed while they were in care. Following that apology, the previous Executive announced a raft of measures, which are continuing, including the establishment of an independent systemic review of the history of in-care abuse during the period 1950 to 1995. The review will be complete in September. Its purpose is to identify exactly the nature of the question, the systems that were in place to protect children and the shortcomings. The final report should help to identify how in-care abuse happened and why the systems failed to prevent it.

The report that Glasgow City Council published today shows that a number of individuals have been referred to the disqualified from working with children list. I am sure that Irene Oldfather understands that I cannot say anything specific about that, but I can confirm that the report shows that a number of people have been referred to the list.

---

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Meetings)

I, too, read with shock, anger and deep concern the press coverage of the report into the alleged abuse at Kerelaw residential school in Ayrshire. People will be filled with horror that Kerelaw, instead of being an environment for the provision of care, seems to have become an environment breeding a culture of abuse.

The First Minister might have partially answered my question in his reply to Mrs Oldfather, but does he agree that the first priority is to take immediate steps to trace those individuals referred to in the report who apparently could still be working with young people and to ensure that they are suspended from working with young people or other vulnerable individuals pending the conclusion of any investigations or court proceedings?

Annabel Goldie is correct, and I thank her for her question. Glasgow City Council's report indicates that it has taken action by referring several individuals to the DWCL. As a point of explanation, 167 individuals are fully listed on the DWCL at the moment and a further 60 are provisionally listed. I am quite certain that the previous Executive's independent review, which is due to report in September, will consider many of the points that Annabel Goldie raises.

I think that Annabel Goldie meant to ask me about my meeting or otherwise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have spoken to him on the phone and I hope to meet him soon in one capacity or another.

Edmund Burke said:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Does the First Minister agree that it is deeply troubling that it would appear that, according to the report, there were people at Kerelaw who had

"knowledge and information about abuse and potential abuse and were unwilling or unable to address this abuse"?

Is the First Minister satisfied that procedures now exist in Scotland to ensure that people will be able to come forward safely and in confidence to report any such fears in the future? Will he investigate the reasons why those individuals felt that they could not speak out?

I am certain that that will be one of the issues to be considered carefully by the independent review. The whole chamber will share Annabel Goldie's concern about this matter, which certainly goes beyond party concerns. However, having established the independent review to ascertain the lessons that we must learn so that we can prevent such an outrage from happening again, we should allow the review to take its course and, as a Parliament, carefully, effectively and quickly deal with its recommendations.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-52)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss a range of issues of importance to Scotland and the Scottish people.

I heard the First Minister's answer to the question about the referral system relating to Kerelaw. Is the Executive satisfied that it knows the names of all the staff about whom Glasgow City Council is concerned and which have been thrown up by its inquiry into the Kerelaw residential unit? Are any of those staff currently working with children in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

A confidential process on such matters is used between the referring organisation, the individual and the Government. I have already indicated that Glasgow City Council, following its report, took action by referring a number of individuals to the DWCL. I am sure that Nicol Stephen, given his legal background, will understand why I cannot go into further specifics; I have strong advice on that. However, I can assure him that when the independent review reports and makes general policy recommendations, the Government will speedily and effectively implement them.

I understand the difficult circumstances, and it seems that the findings in Glasgow City Council's report are grim. The First Minister's answer offers some reassurance, and I thank him for what he has been able to say.

The children in question have had bad starts in life, which have been made worse by the way in which the state has looked after them. Too often, our most vulnerable children are the ones who are let down the most. What steps will the First Minister take to examine the serious failings that are being identified? What commitments can he make to ensure that the lessons of the report are learned by everyone with responsibility for looked-after children across Scotland? What efforts will he make to ensure that this never happens again and that nobody who is implicated in these incidents can find a legal loophole that will allow them to continue to work with children in any part of the United Kingdom?

From what we know, it seems clear that the seriousness of the findings in the report requires action to be taken immediately rather than simply waiting until September or October.

I asked for a report on this matter this morning. There is a part of the process just now that allows referred individuals who have jobs at the time of the referral to continue to work, even during the provisional listing stage. I am asking to look at that aspect, because it seems to be anomalous and not equivalent to what happens in other organisations. For example, teachers are often suspended from duty in such circumstances.

As the former Deputy First Minister knows, I have to be extremely careful not to make policy on the hoof. However, I think that the independent review group that the previous First Minister established must be allowed to do its work. We should not try to second-guess its findings or interfere by making decisions now that might be crossed over by its report in September.

Given the details in the newspaper reports today, I understand why people think it is urgent that immediate action be taken. I will look, in particular, at the point that I have stressed. However, I ask everyone in the chamber to let the independent review group that has been established get on with its work and then speedily—as parliamentarians—to implement its recommendations.

We have a constituency question from Duncan McNeil.

The First Minister will be aware of the announcement today by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that, following concerns over the assessment and diagnosis of possible breast cancer symptoms at Inverclyde royal hospital, the cases of 1,600 women have had to be reviewed and that, of those, nearly 200 patients must now be re-examined.

Although, of course, the first priority will be to reassure every woman involved as quickly as possible—I am assured that every ounce of capacity in the entire NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area is being focused on that—will the First Minister instruct the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, as a matter of urgency, to initiate a full inquiry into what has gone wrong and how a reoccurrence will be prevented? Will he assure me and my constituents that any solution will be based on improving the quality of the services at Inverclyde royal hospital and not on removing them?

Duncan McNeil is correct to say that 200 patients have been asked to attend specifically arranged clinics for further checks. Nicola Sturgeon has today asked NHS Quality Improvement Scotland to accelerate the completion of the current review of clinical standards for breast cancer services.

All of us were hugely concerned to learn that patients attending clinics at Inverclyde royal hospital have not received the highest standards of care that are available to women in other parts of Scotland. I welcome the urgent action that has already been taken by the board and I am sure that everyone in the chamber will welcome the action that has been taken today by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing.

We have a further constituency question from Roseanna Cunningham.

What will be the Government's response to the decision in Perth sheriff court on Tuesday 13 June, approving an exemption from the right to roam that is enshrined in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003? I appreciate that the First Minister is unlikely to have read the entire judgment, but given that he, like me, represents an area that contains many large estates, does he share my concern that, if the judgment is sound and similar decisions follow, the 2003 act might need to be revisited?

I have not read the full sheriff's opinion but I have read a summary of it, which all members in the chamber should have a look at. As Roseanna Cunningham knows, at the moment we have a sheriff's opinion. There is an indication from the council that it will take the matter to appeal, in which case we will get a determination. Another case in Stirling sheriff court relates to the same issues.

I suggest that we should at least wait until the case reaches the court of appeal and consider whether the judgment points to serious deficiencies in the structure of the 2003 act. If it does, and case evidence builds up, only then should the Parliament consider whether any legislative changes are required to repair deficiencies that may exist in an act that was passed under the previous Administration.

---

“FSB Scotland Index of Success 2007”

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the Federation of Small Businesses' recently published annual index of wealth and the comparison with other small countries, particularly in respect of health and life expectancy. (S3F-71)

The results are disappointing. They reflect what some of us have been saying for some time: on a range of indicators, Scotland has been underperforming.

The index is particularly valuable in comparing Scotland with countries such as Norway, Iceland and Ireland, whose success on that index and across a range of economic and social indicators is an example of what we should aspire to in Scotland.

Does the First Minister acknowledge that, in developed countries, relative poverty rather than absolute poverty explains the health differences between countries? That is why small, independent Scandinavian countries with a more equitable wealth distribution significantly outperform Scotland—not an independent nation—in the life expectancy of their citizens and the index of wealth.

Will the council of economic advisers that was announced by the First Minister be charged with considering every proposal to boost Scotland's economy in the light of its potential impact on not just absolute poverty, but relative poverty?

Yes it will, because one of our objectives is not just increased economic growth, which is important, but economic growth that touches every part and section of the community of Scotland.

The index was compiled by John McLaren, who should be taken seriously because he is a former special adviser to Donald Dewar and Henry McLeish. He is, therefore, a good economist who cannot be accused of feeding lines to Bill Wilson for political purposes.

I was amazed to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland, Douglas Alexander, on Tuesday in the House of Commons, seeming to regard the findings of the index as some form of success. I remind members that, on the index, we are 10th out of 10 in the small countries compared and that our position has been declining.

The index does two things. First, it tells this Administration what the starting point is as we embark on a period of government. Secondly, it should convince everybody that the opinion of the Secretary of State for Scotland—that the index shows some sort of deferred success—is not good enough for the new Scotland.

The FSB's index of success report has established itself as a valuable contribution to the debate on Scotland's economy, particularly on the importance of health and well-being to economic performance. However, does the First Minister agree that headlines such as "The worst small country in the world" are not only untrue, but are unhelpful to Scotland's reputation overseas and in attracting inward investment? What is his position on those who seek to talk down Scotland's economic performance?

I agree with that point. In defence of the press—I am always anxious to rush to its defence at every opportunity—I think that the headline was a parody of the slogan, "The best small country in the world." It is a bit foolish to have such a slogan unless we can convince people on the evidence that it is justified by the economy and social indicators. Perhaps a better slogan would be that we aspire to be the best-performing economy and social system in the world.

---

Universities (Funding)

To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to ensure that funding for Scottish universities does not fall further behind that of those in other parts of the United Kingdom. (S3F-53)

As was said yesterday, that issue will be considered in detail during the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. It is clear that the international competitiveness of Scottish higher education is a critical issue for Scotland. We will take into account developments elsewhere in the United Kingdom and internationally and work on developing a robust evidence base ahead of the spending review. I am delighted that Universities Scotland has said that it is keen to work with the Executive on that.

The annual budget of the University of Edinburgh is £450 million, that of the University of Manchester is £600 million and that of the University of Cambridge is £900 million. How can we ever compete in teaching and research if the Scottish Executive does not face up to the direct funding of universities—which is the real problem in higher education—as the United Kingdom Government has done south of the border?

George Foulkes says that universities should not fall further behind, but his question is something of an indictment of his colleagues who were in the previous Administration. I understand that the position of Jack McConnell and Nicol Stephen is that Scottish universities were and are properly funded.

It was said yesterday that a huge issue is coming up—namely, whether we will be able to sustain our relative position in the light of the funding that could go to universities south of the border when the cap comes off top-up fees. That issue was, of course, debated strongly in the Westminster Parliament. A large number of Labour Party members of Parliament—72—rebelled against the Government's proposal, which was passed by only five votes. I have with me the division list relating to that vote. The then rector of the University of Edinburgh, Tam Dalyell, was among the rebels; George Foulkes, who was then the MP for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, was among the Government's supporters. The Government will take action to protect the position of Scottish universities, but there is one person in the chamber with an individual responsibility for the threat that looms over our university systems—Lord George Foulkes.

Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said in response to a question that Scottish universities are "well funded". That statement will have raised eyebrows in the university sector, which is worried about its competitive position. Does the First Minister agree that it is time for an independent review of higher education funding and student support in Scotland that is modelled on the Cubie committee review, so that we can try to safeguard universities, which are important institutions?

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said yesterday that universities are properly funded and that the potential looming threat was the cap on top-up fees being removed south of the border. To be fair, the member's colleagues have argued that that presents a serious danger. Working on robust evidence-based analysis during the spending review is important. Universities Scotland is pleased with that process, and the Government intends to work in that way.

---

United Kingdom Government

To ask the First Minister whether he intends to work constructively with the United Kingdom Government on issues of mutual concern. (S3F-69)

Yes, I do. I gave an example of such constructive work earlier when I mentioned that I had approved the appointment of the new chairman of the commission for employment and skills, and Robert Brown will have noticed that over the past week, Linda Fabiani and Richard Lochhead have worked extremely constructively with their Westminster counterparts on the approach to the European Council and on fisheries.

I thank the First Minister for his assurance. He has rightly drawn attention to the fact that the joint working arrangements with the UK Government need to be reinvigorated. Now that the lines of communication with Westminster appear to be opening, will he discuss that matter with his new pal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In the interests of transparency, will he agree to publish regularly a note of all ministerial meetings with UK ministers and their subject matter? Does he support the Steel commission's suggestion that there should be a joint Scottish Parliament and Westminster Parliament committee to reflect the parliamentary dimension of those vital UK relationships?

I am attracted to the idea of the publication of the minutes. Of course, that would require the agreement of the United Kingdom ministers, and traditionally United Kingdom ministers have not been happy with the publication of the minutes of ministerial meetings. Nevertheless, I shall pursue that point and get back to Robert Brown.

There is a lot of concern, not just in the chamber and in the Government, about the way in which the joint ministerial meetings—apart from those on Europe—effectively fell into disuse over the past few years. There is concern about that in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the National Assembly for Wales. A lot of people share my concern that we need to reinvigorate the formal structures so that matters can be properly operated on.

I hear what Robert Brown says about communications. I can tell the chamber that communications have been restored. I have received a letter from the Prime Minister.

Is it signed?

Yes, it is signed. It tells me that Her Majesty the Queen has graciously asked me to join the Privy Council. I am delighted to accept. So, here we have it: after 28 days, I have received a letter—by royal command.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—