Plenary, 14 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, September 14, 2006

Official Report 753KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2422)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

Is the First Minister aware that today the churches in Scotland, led by Cardinal Keith O'Brien and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, are uniting with the trade unions and many ordinary people in opposition to the replacement of Trident nuclear weapons? The First Minister has said that he will take a stance on the issue. Has he decided what that stance will be? Is he for or against the replacement of Trident?

As I said earlier in the summer, the matter requires serious debate and not a knee-jerk reaction from the nationalists. I respect the position that the churches in Scotland have taken—indeed, I discussed the matter with them early last month. I understand the strength of feeling that exists in the church hierarchies and among many church members, who will be involved in the representations that are made today and into next week.

Of course senior politicians should listen to those representations. They should also consider carefully the international climate in which we live and base their decision on that consideration. I intend to come to a view on the matter and make that view very clear indeed.

While the First Minister sits on the fence, the debate in the real world is moving on. Does the First Minister agree with me that nuclear weapons offer no solution to any of the challenges that the world faces or will face in the foreseeable future? Nuclear weapons cannot fight international terrorism. Surely even Mr McConnell can see that it will be infinitely harder to prevent proliferation in countries such as Iran and North Korea while countries such as the United Kingdom are building up and modernising their nuclear arsenals. Is it not the case that there is no rational argument for spending £25 billion of taxpayers' money on new nuclear weapons? Is it not time that the First Minister of Scotland had the courage to stand up and say so?

Those matters are all reserved, of course.

I believed strongly in unilateral nuclear disarmament 25 years ago, because of the nature of the cold war at the time, when there were no movements from any of the major superpowers to reduce their nuclear arsenals. In due course, the superpowers started to make reductions. As a result, many of us changed our approach to the issue and supported the multilateral reductions that took place. We also supported the unilateral reductions that have taken place under the British Labour Government, which since 1997 has reduced the stockpile associated with the UK.

I agree with Ms Sturgeon that we live in a dangerous world. There are other factors at play. There are two options: to replace Trident; or to include Trident in some form of international discussion. It would be wrong to take the Scottish National Party's option, which is to give up something for nothing. A genuine debate needs to take place during the winter here in the UK and elsewhere about whether we replace Trident unilaterally or include Trident in international discussions in order to secure safeguards and guarantees from Iran and elsewhere. That would be the responsible approach; the SNP's approach would be irresponsible and pre-emptive.

I am not asking the First Minister about negotiation on existing Trident nuclear weapons; I am asking him for his view on the replacement of those weapons. Is it not the case that the issue will be decided not in the distant future but in the next few months? The First Minister says that it is too early to take a stance, but the problem is that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown do not think so. They have already said that they support the replacement of Trident nuclear weapons, so the question for the First Minister is simple: does he think that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are right or does he agree with the vast majority of people in Scotland, including the one third of his back benchers who have signed up in support of today's march against nuclear weapons? Does he agree that replacing Trident would simply be wrong and that it would not make a dangerous world one bit safer?

Unlike Ms Sturgeon, I do not take my orders from a leader in London. [Laughter.] I have wanted to say that for two years and I have finally had the chance.

I completely understand and respect the passion with which those who are demonstrating today and through into next week hold their convictions. I respect those in the hierarchies of the churches in Scotland who have campaigned on the issue for many years. However, I ask Ms Sturgeon to consider for a moment the fact that we live in a world in which there are countries that could be extremely dangerous and which could develop nuclear weapons systems in the coming years. What would be more effective: to include Britain's system in discussions with those countries to secure guarantees from them, or for Britain to make a unilateral decision regardless of what happens in Iran or anywhere else? There is a case to be made for that course of action—for serious international discussions—but I also want to ensure that, in the UK, we have a genuine and open debate about the way forward that is based on international reality.

Mr McConnell has not answered the central question: how can we effectively preach non-proliferation while building up a new nuclear arsenal here in the United Kingdom? Does he understand that people want a First Minister who will stand up and be counted on the big issues that affect Scotland, not one who will constantly hedge his bets in case he offends not the current leader of the Labour Party but its next London leader? Might his repeated failure to state a position on the big issues that people in Scotland care about have something to do with the fact that, as we saw on Sunday, 70 per cent of people in Scotland simply do not trust him to stand up for Scotland?

There is an approach to leadership in the Parliament that Ms Sturgeon will perhaps never understand. It is vital that, when we speak on behalf of Scotland, we do so responsibly and consider the medium-term and long-term implications of what we say, not only its short-term popularity. I agree absolutely that there must be a debate on the matter. I have not taken a view on it and I have certainly not accepted anybody else's view on it. I will take my own view based on the facts and evidence as the months move on.

However, I will be clear that the one wrong option would be to decide on the matter in advance of any discussions in the international arena in which it would perhaps be possible—as a result of decisions on Britain's nuclear weapons—to influence those other nations that could develop such systems in the future. That course of action merits serious consideration from those in Scotland who have traditionally supported nuclear weapons systems and those who have not.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2423)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues that are important to Scotland.

Yesterday, the Executive released new figures that showed that the proportion of people who are employed in the public sector has rocketed again, including an 18.4 per cent increase in Scottish Executive staff since 1999. Does the First Minister agree with Richard Lambert, the new director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who, at the annual CBI Scotland dinner last week, spoke of

"a public sector which has not been as focused as it should have been on growth-enhancing projects"?

First, it is important to be clear about what has happened in recent years in Scotland. The growth in private sector employment in Scotland has outstripped the growth in public sector employment and the growth in public sector employment has been concentrated in our schools, hospitals and health service and on tackling crime. If the Conservatives are against that, they should be honest and say so.

In the three years since the previous Scottish Parliament elections, the investment of the devolved Government and our clear priority of growing the Scottish economy have been reflected in increased resources in higher and further education, transport and the other infrastructure that supports growth in Scotland's economy. Those have been the right decisions for us to take and are precisely why the employment level in Scotland is the highest out of the United Kingdom nations and why employment in Scotland is up on what it was last year.

Business leaders and the Scottish Conservatives are not the only people to express concern about the potential impact of our growing public sector. Interestingly, another authoritative comment has been made recently on the problem. In the Edinburgh Evening News, the First Minister said that removing public sector jobs allowed the private sector to flourish. Specifically, he said:

"if we can take some of those public sector jobs out of Edinburgh and allow the private sector to grow more, we are doing a good thing for the Edinburgh economy, not a bad thing."

Whatever I might think of the literary style of that quotation, following the First Minister's logic, does he agree that reducing the proportion of public sector jobs across Scotland would be "a good thing" for the Scottish economy?

If the Conservatives' policy is to reduce the number of teachers, staff in care homes for elderly people and people in our police force and related services who are helping to tackle crime, I do not agree with it. I believe that the nearly 4,000 additional teachers, the thousands of additional care home staff—particularly for elderly people—the almost 4,000 additional police and related services staff and additional members of staff in many other areas are on the front line, tackling Scotland's problems and ensuring that future generations in Scotland are healthier, better educated and live in a safer society. Alongside that, private sector employment has grown at a faster rate in Scotland because of the policies of the United Kingdom Government and this devolved Government, which have created a stable macro-economy and ensured good investment in those areas for which we have responsibility and which can give Scotland a competitive edge. That has been the right thing for us to do. I am absolutely certain that that is more in tune with the views of the people of Scotland than is the Conservatives' view, which is to cut those jobs.

The burgeoning public sector and the Executive's obsession with controlling everything from the centre is threatening Scotland's fragile private sector economy. The public sector is now estimated at well over 50 per cent of gross domestic product. There is virtual unanimity among experts that that level of public sector activity is stifling economic growth, which is a fact that the First Minister now appears to agree with.

What is the First Minister going to do about the ever-increasing legions of desk pilots, pen pushers and paper shufflers who spend their time reporting back to Executive ministers rather than delivering front-line services?

I might be dismayed by the fact that Ms Sturgeon has to take her orders from London, but I wish that Miss Goldie was taking her orders from a leader in London, where at least some consideration seems to be given, at the top of the Conservative party in public, to public services; that is shown in some of the reports that the party has produced.

The position has to be made absolutely clear. Miss Goldie totally misrepresents the investment in public sector staff in Scotland in recent years.

Eighteen per cent.

She misrepresents—

Eighteen per cent.

Yes, we heard you, Mr Gallie.

She misrepresents the fact that we have more than 20,000 additional staff working in Scotland's schools with Scotland's schoolchildren; that we have nearly 10,000 additional people looking after our elderly people and children in the vital care services that were poorly invested in during the years of Conservative Government; and that we have nearly 4,000 additional people in the police force and elsewhere working to make our streets safer for people in Scotland.

Those are vital investments and they should not be cut by the Conservatives. They are paired with an increase in private sector employment—in jobs in businesses and companies in Scotland—that far outstrips the growth in public sector jobs. That is the right course for Scotland—investment in public services at the same time as investment, support and growth in the public sector.

There is one back-bench supplementary question.

Is the First Minister aware of an information note from the European Commission that has been received by some people in the Highlands and Islands? The note asserts that the Commission auditors propose a financial clawback of about £20 million from the 1994 to 1999 European regional development fund because of what they consider to be management weaknesses and ineligible expenditure. Will the First Minister assure me that he will contest the proposals at the highest level in Europe so that we are not faced with picking up the tab for something that pre-dates this Parliament?

I have seen the correspondence from Mr Meadows; I received it last night. I make it clear to the Parliament that we contest the findings of the audit report on the 1994 to 1999 European programme in the Highlands. The investment in structural projects in the Highlands, then and now, has underpinned the growth of the economy and the strength of the Highland communities that we see today.

We see no justification for the conclusion that Scotland should be fined today for actions that the auditors claim took place in the 1990s; our devolved Government needs money to invest in schools and hospitals, in tackling crime and in growing our economy. We will contest the European Commission's finding. We will ask for the United Kingdom Government's support in doing so, and we will do so vigorously, starting next Thursday, when the commissioner visits the Parliament and I meet her in my office.

---

Executive Agency Relocations

To ask the First Minister what the next agency to be relocated from Edinburgh will be and what the Scottish Executive considers will be the benefits for Edinburgh citizens and the capital's economy of such a move. (S2F-2434)

Ministers continually review the location of public bodies. We review locations from Edinburgh and from elsewhere in Scotland, including from Inverness to the islands. We do so with care and we take each case on its merits. We consider the impact on the individual organisations and the impact on the location where the jobs are currently placed. We also consider the beneficial impact that there could be in another location. We do so for two reasons. First, we are increasing the number of public service jobs in education, social work, tackling crime and other areas. Secondly, throughout Scotland there are economies that are weaker than some of our cities and areas that have prospered more in recent years and they need to feel the benefit of public sector jobs.

In Edinburgh, during the years of devolution, about 1,500 jobs have been transferred out of the capital city as offices have moved to elsewhere in Scotland. At the same time, the number of public sector jobs in Edinburgh has risen from 41,000 to 48,000. That increase is far more significant than any decrease that has been caused by the removal of offices. That is a record from which Edinburgh's economy has benefited and one of which we can all be proud.

The First Minister is entitled to show me his figures and I will show him mine. Is he aware that the percentage of people in public sector jobs in Edinburgh is 27.9 per cent? In Dundee, 37 per cent of the city's workforce is employed in the public sector and in Glasgow the figure is 31.2 per cent. Now that he knows those facts and figures, does he understand the non-partisan, across-the-board opposition that was provoked by his statement that losing public sector jobs was a jolly good idea for Edinburgh? Does he now agree with the City of Edinburgh Council, the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce and the people of Edinburgh that it would be perverse to move the Registers of Scotland out of the capital and to move the Scottish Arts Council out of the city that hosts the world's biggest arts festival, to say nothing of the turmoil that would be caused in at least 1,500 households in the city? I am heartened to hear that he will consider every case on its merits.

There are no current plans to relocate jobs out of Edinburgh or anywhere else in Scotland that are not already in the public domain. I hope that any concerns that there might be about that are alleviated by that statement.

However, we continue to consider those matters because there is an issue about the impact of public sector jobs on the economy of Scotland as a whole and a responsible Parliament and devolved Government has to consider that case on its merits. Margo MacDonald mentioned Edinburgh and Dundee. Edinburgh city has one of the highest employment rates in Scotland and the United Kingdom. Edinburgh city employers came to me four years ago to say that they were having problems with recruiting people because of the size of the public sector in the city. As First Minister, I had a duty to take on board that concern and use it as one factor in our decisions. In the same way, we moved jobs from Inverness to the islands to support fragile island communities when Inverness was booming.

Such decisions have to be taken carefully, with principles at their core instead of populism. I intend to keep to the principles that I held when I started in this Parliament in 1999, even if others in some of the other parties are running away from them.

Does the First Minister agree that we can get too much of a good thing? It might have seemed like a good idea in 1999, but it is not such a good idea now. I would like an assurance from the First Minister that the two agencies that I mentioned are not in danger of being moved out of what should be their home in the capital of Scotland.

We treat every case on its merits.

---

General Practitioners (Numbers)

To ask the First Minister whether there will be sufficient GPs to meet future health needs. (S2F-2433)

NHS boards have a duty to ensure that all Scotland's residents have access to a general practitioner, and the Executive will continue to provide resources to support that.

I appreciate that the Executive has plans to increase the number of GPs in training, but the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners have this week expressed concerns that there might be a shortfall in the number of GPs in Scotland in six years. After the Tory Government closed the Edinburgh Dental School in the 1980s, there was an increasing shortage of dentists that resulted in a dental crisis in many parts of Scotland; fortunately, that crisis has been alleviated in Dumfries and Galloway by the employment of a number of eastern European dentists.

Question, please.

Will the First Minister assure the chamber and Scotland that action to increase GP numbers will be taken in sufficient time to prevent similar problems arising in general practice?

A report was published in August 2003 that recommended that we increase the number of training posts to fill the gap that might exist by 2012. We accepted that recommendation and have increased the number of training posts from 250 to 280. We believe that that number puts us on course to deal with the future workforce demands, but we will keep the position under review as part of the annual workforce surveys in the health service.

Is the First Minister aware that there might well have been a major underestimation of the number of people who will complete the GP training scheme? The figure could be as many as 250 more than the 500 by which it was estimated we would be short in 2012, which would leave a shortfall of 750 GPs. In light of that, can the First Minister tell us by how many the Executive will increase the number of GP places, and when will that happen?

We should be very careful about predicting the health service workforce on the basis of headlines. It is important that we examine the evidence that we have. That is why we have a proper workforce survey and when the reports that are commissioned by that survey make recommendations to us, we either accept them or consider them very carefully and adjust them. In this case, we accepted the recommendation and we will keep the position under review.

Will the First Minister's plans take account of the coming introduction of the reform of postgraduate medical training, which will require general practice experience for trainees in many specialties, not just GPs?

I do not have the detail about what the figure contains in its entirety, but I would be very happy to supply that information to Nanette Milne.

---

Agricultural Exports (China)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive is taking to increase Scottish agricultural exports to China. (S2F-2426)

Scottish Development International is helping Scottish food companies to investigate and develop export opportunities. In addition, the Scottish Executive is actively involved in negotiations aimed at opening up the Chinese market to Scottish seed potatoes.

Is the First Minister aware that China is the largest potato-producing country in the world but low yields make it a perfect export market for field-grown high-quality Scottish seed potatoes? Such exports could benefit 300 producers in Scotland and create a massive multimillion pound industry if present restrictions were to be lifted. Given the present on-going inter-Government talks, what assurances can the First Minister give that Scotland's interests will be upheld in any settlement? What steps is he taking to ensure that that happens?

I thank Andrew Welsh for his question. I know that he has a genuine interest in the issue and I treat his questions seriously.

First, the Executive, at official level, was represented on 30 August when representations on that very issue were made in China. Scotland's interests are being represented at the very highest level inside China. Secondly, over the past two years we have considerably expanded our operations in China to promote Scottish businesses generally. That has a direct impact on the support that we can give to the agricultural industry as well as other industries. The SDI's offices in Beijing and Shanghai are available to, and are being used by, Scottish agricultural interests as well as by other companies.

"Scotland's strategy for stronger engagement with China" is silent on the lack of freedom of speech and democracy in China. It is silent on the enforced abortions, the enforced sterilisations, the Amnesty prisoners of conscience, torture in prisons and summary executions. Why are the First Minister and his Government silent on human rights abuses?

The question is about agriculture.

We are not silent. On each of my visits to Beijing over the past two years, I have specifically raised those issues. I have also raised them here in Scotland with representatives of the Chinese Government. Other ministers have done the same. We are not silent on those issues.

However, I have to say to Chris Ballance that this is a Government, not a campaigning voluntary organisation. We do not take up issues with other Governments elsewhere as a central part of our economic strategy. However, our strategy for engaging with China is not just about Scottish businesses in China creating jobs in Scotland, but about engaging with the people of China. Just this week, I met representatives of a group of 100 students who, having studied for the first two years of their degree in China, have come to the University of Stirling to complete their final year. They will learn more about our country through that process than through us shouting from the rafters with Chris Ballance.

---

Social Work (Dumfries and Galloway)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive will take to ensure that the performance inspection report by the Social Work Inspection Agency into the social work services provided by Dumfries and Galloway Council is acted upon as a matter of urgency. (S2F-2429)

We take the report very seriously. The Minister for Education and Young People met representatives of Dumfries and Galloway Council on 28 August and wrote to its convener and chief executive on 4 September. He reinforced his concerns at the findings and welcomed the council's clear commitment to take the action necessary to bring about improvement. The inspection agency will keep ministers informed of the council's progress and conduct a follow-up inspection in a year's time.

I am grateful to the First Minister for his recognition that the report requires some serious attention. Is he aware that the SWIA report states:

"We are of the opinion that the capacity for improvement is weak … We had concerns about the limited capacity to deliver necessary change within the present structure and staffing"?

How can my constituents have any faith that the report's 24 major recommendations will be implemented efficiently, effectively and urgently when the people who are tasked with overseeing those improvements are the very same people who allowed this catastrophic situation to develop in the first place? Will the First Minister commit the Executive to intervene directly, if it proves necessary to do so, to ensure a timeous resolution to this very serious matter?

The Minister for Education and Young People, Peter Peacock, understands those concerns and has agreed with the council's chief executive that the council will bring in experts from elsewhere to assist with the implementation of the recommendations. Given that some of the key recommendations and criticisms in the report are about the capacity of Dumfries and Galloway Council to deal with change, bringing in those experts from elsewhere is an important step to ensure that changes take place.

As we started a minute late, I will allow a final supplementary question.

One of the issues that the report addresses is the difficulty in recruiting professional staff in Dumfries and Galloway. That issue applies not just to social work, but to dentistry, medicine and teaching. Could any special measures be implemented that would attract professionals of the right calibre to Dumfries and Galloway in sufficient numbers to enjoy the quality of life there, to which the report also refers?

Many local authorities in Scotland are taking specific measures to attract staff to their areas—both urban and rural—in social work and in other professions. I would encourage Dumfries and Galloway Council to look at that matter.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—