Plenary, 15 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, June 15, 2006

Official Report 574KB 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-2357)

I was not going to make any introductory comment, but on the way into the chamber I met Matthew Rowe and Laura Gorman, who are at the Parliament today with Kate Maclean. They are the members of the Scottish Youth Parliament for Dundee West. I welcome them to the Parliament.

I met the Prime Minister recently and I plan to meet him again soon.

I am happy to echo that welcome.

Is it not the case that today's proposal by the Labour-Liberal Executive to introduce variable top-up tuition fees in Scotland is a clear breach of its commitment not to do so?

No.

It is interesting that the First Minister should answer in that way. I am not surprised that he does not want to expand on his answer. I remind the First Minister of precisely what the Labour-Liberal coalition agreement says:

"We will not support the introduction of top-up tuition fees."

The statement could not be clearer, but today that promise is being broken by the introduction of variable top-up fees for certain students here in Scotland.

However, it is not the first Labour promise on tuition fees that has been broken, is it? In 1997, Labour said that it would not introduce tuition fees at all, but it did. In 2001, Labour said that there would be no top-up fees in England, but there are. Today, despite saying in the coalition agreement that he would not do so, the First Minister is imposing variable top-up fees here in Scotland. Is it any wonder that those who recognise that this is the thin end of the wedge will not believe the First Minister when he says that it is not?

First, we are not introducing variable top-up tuition fees, we have no intention of doing so and it will not happen as long as I am First Minister. Students in Scotland, the families of potential students in Scotland and people who need to see more medical staff in our health service in Scotland will be interested to know that members of the Scottish National Party—of all people—think that it would be acceptable to have a system that would disadvantage Scottish students in the years to come. A clear recommendation has come from the Calman report and from other places that we need to take action to secure the places of Scottish students, who are more likely than students from south of the border to stay in Scotland and work in our health service. Today's measures are practical, down-to-earth measures that will achieve that. For the SNP to oppose them is probably the most anti-Scottish thing that it has ever done.

The First Minister initially said that he is not doing it, then he got up and justified why he is doing it. I remind the First Minister of what his higher education minister, Allan Wilson, said two weeks ago:

"We have no evidence that suitably qualified Scottish students are being denied access to or are unable to obtain places in Scottish higher education institutions".—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 30 May 2006; c 3121.]

Applications from English students for medical places are down this year. The First Minister's argument is spurious. Is it not the case that if young folk in Scotland are finding it harder to get to university, the reason for that is mounting student debt? Is the First Minister aware that the average debt of a graduate who leaves university this year is £11,000 and that £2,000 of that is down to the graduate endowment, or back-door tuition fee, that he and his colleagues introduced? Instead of increasing front-door tuition fees for English students, should not the First Minister get rid of the back-door tuition fees with which—thanks to his Labour-Liberal Government—Scottish students are still burdened?

First, I make it clear that I am proud that this Administration and this Parliament not only abolished tuition fees but at the same time reintroduced proper bursaries for Scottish students who need them. We will build on that in the years to come.

Secondly, I make it clear that we are not introducing top-up tuition fees in Scotland. That will not happen. However, we will protect the interests of the Scottish health service and the interests of Scottish students who want to study in our medical schools. We want to preserve the number of Scottish students who study in our medical schools. It is because of the announcement of that last year that, as Ms Sturgeon suggests, applications from English students are down.

If we had not made that announcement, the financial incentive of a £9,000 saving for students from England who come to Scotland to study at our medical schools would have remained as an incentive and many more of them would have come forward. For the SNP to oppose this measure, and therefore to demand a disadvantage for Scottish students and a disadvantage for the Scottish health service, is shameful. The SNP is wrong; it is anti-Scottish in its approach and its members should withdraw their objection this afternoon.

Yet again, the First Minister says in one breath, "I'm not introducing top-up fees," and in the next breath says, "Here's why I'm introducing top-up fees." [Interruption.]

Order.

Who said, "Education is a right, not a privilege to be paid for"? That was the First Minister, back in the days when he had principles. Who said, "It's time to get rid of the graduate endowment"? That was the Liberal Democrat Deputy First Minister just last year—the same person who is responsible for introducing top-up fees in Scotland in the Parliament today. Is it not a real shame that the rhetoric of the First Minister and his deputy—both of whom, let us not forget, benefited from free education—is simply not matched by their actions? In anybody's language, is that not sheer and utter hypocrisy?

Apart from my commitment to social justice and fairness, my one abiding principle, as the First Minister of Scotland, is to stand up for Scotland. Clearly, Ms Sturgeon does not share that principle. I will do the right thing for Scottish students and the Scottish health service.

There is absolutely no doubt that our medical schools are among the very best in the world. People travel to them from North America, Europe, Asia and further afield—and, of course, from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those medical schools will be under pressure if this one, single measure is not introduced today. That is why, this afternoon, we will put first the interests of Scottish students and the Scottish health service, which is where the vast majority of Scottish medical students will work. That the SNP has been so anti-Scottish in its opposition to the measure is something that will stay with it for a very long time.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2358)

Among other issues, at next week's meeting of the Cabinet we will finalise the statement on the legislative programme for the remainder of the Parliament that we intend to make to Parliament in advance of the summer recess. As promised, the programme will include a sentencing bill to abolish automatic early release.

A triumph for the Tories. [Laughter.]

I am sure that the First Minister was as shocked as I was to hear about the sad case of the seven-year-old boy who collapsed at his school in Inverness after taking methadone. In March, following the tragic death of Derek Doran from methadone, I asked the First Minister whether he could tell me how many people are currently prescribed methadone, how long they have been on it and how many of them look after children. Is the First Minister any further forward in answering those questions?

I have three things to say to Miss Goldie. First, if there had been devolution back in 1993, we might not have allowed the Tories to introduce automatic early release. Let us celebrate the fact that we are finally correcting the error.

Secondly, I share Annabel Goldie's dismay at the news of the illness of the seven-year-old boy. The reasons for his illness are not yet absolutely clear. I caution against commenting on the news until all the reports have been duly considered. However, the possibility that the boy was affected by methadone identifies the fact that that remains a serious problem in Scotland. We are addressing the problem in partial measure by the report that we published last month. We will take the actions that are required to protect children where drug-abusing parents—either their own or others'—are likely to impact on their opportunities in life.

Thirdly, I turn to the questions that Annabel Goldie posed back in March and that she poses again today. As she now knows, the number of people in Scotland who are on methadone is about 20,000; the figures are becoming clearer all the time. We do not hold figures centrally on the individual care plan programmes of each of those individuals. I suspect that it would not be right for us to hold such information, as it should be managed locally and will always be confidential between patients and medical staff. However, as I have said before, I agree with Miss Goldie that every individual who is on such a programme should be taking a planned approach with a view to becoming drug free. As far as I am aware, that is not the case with every such programme in Scotland, but it should be the case and we are working towards ensuring that it is the case. I intend, if at all possible, to do that on a cross-party basis.

In the recent case in Inverness, the authorities seem to be at a loss to explain how the child got hold of the methadone—if such it is—but we know that such risks can exist in the school environment.

I made my previous request for information because it is important that we establish whether the licensed distribution of methadone presents difficulties through accident, negligence or whatever. We need more information so that we can pinpoint where methadone has come from and also identify any children who might be at risk.

Does the First Minister agree that methadone is a highly addictive and potentially dangerous drug? Does he agree that, if the essential information that I have requested becomes available, it should be given in confidence to schools so that they are aware of any children who are potentially at risk?

We have said very clearly—this is increasingly the case in Scotland as a result of the actions that we have taken—that vulnerable youngsters who are in that position or similar situations should be clearly identified within the schools system and senior staff should be identified as responsible for their care and attention. That new measure has been introduced within the past five years and it is important for the relationship between schools and other authorities in managing youngsters who are either formally looked after or vulnerable in other ways.

I caution again that I received this information only five minutes before coming into the chamber, so I did not have a chance to find out whether anyone intended to ask a question on the issue and to alert them in advance, but I am told that the reports on the boy in Inverness are inconclusive at this stage. Therefore, we cannot assume that the illness that has affected him is a direct result, or even any result, of methadone.

I agree with Annabel Goldie that we need to be clearer about those who are on methadone care plans and that they must form part of the system, but we must also be clearer that there are other routes to becoming drug free. Methadone should be a route to become drug free, not a permanent state, but other routes must also be pursued. That is precisely why we have increased, in quite dramatic fashion, the number of rehabilitation places that are available in Scotland to secure the drug-free lifestyles that people want. That is also why we need to persist with our efforts to reduce the number of people who take drugs in Scotland and, in particular, the number who inject drugs. The numbers are coming down, but it is important that we continue to work on that.

I am partially encouraged by the First Minister's response.

In the wider environment in which it is given, methadone is often referred to as part of a harm-reduction strategy. I accept that there may be legitimate doubt about the circumstances of the young boy in Inverness, but the incident reminds us of the dangers that this drug presents to wider society if it is inadvertently, negligently or improperly distributed beyond prescribed users. Establishing the facts is surely a first step, but we must also move Scotland away from an overreliance on methadone. Therefore, I repeat the call that I have made many times before and ask the First Minister whether, as has happened in England and Wales, he will establish a central directory containing details of every available treatment and rehabilitation facility in Scotland—whether state funded or in the voluntary sector—so that we can at least offer drug addicts the maximum opportunity to end their addiction.

When I watched Annabel Goldie's speech at her party's Scottish winter conference, I did not do so in anticipation of comments that she or Murdo Fraser might make later. At that time, I did not pay particular attention to what the future might hold, but I was interested in her proposal. We offered discussions with the Minister for Justice to take forward some of Annabel Goldie's suggestions, including the idea of a directory. I understand that that proposal was discussed in the meeting that Annabel Goldie had with the Minister for Justice and that Cathy Jamieson has given an undertaking to consider the proposal as a matter of urgency.

The idea is sensible. If it can be done practically, we will do it. I hope that it and other measures, taken on a cross-party basis, can help us not only to reduce the number of people in Scotland who rely on drugs and to continue to increase the number of people who are caught for trading in drugs, but to ensure that those who are already addicts are more successfully taken away from their addiction to achieve a drug-free lifestyle.

I call Euan Robson on a constituency matter.

In the light of yesterday's announcement of the closure of two small community hospitals in Coldstream and Jedburgh in my constituency, will the First Minister reflect on whether the Health Department's decision was in line with the Kerr report? Further, will he impress on NHS Borders the need to develop national health service provision in both towns and to engage constructively with nursing home providers to establish respite and palliative care and slow-stream rehabilitation services locally?

First, the decisions that the Minister for Health and Community Care confirmed yesterday were in line with the Kerr report. That was not the minister's report, of course, but the report by Professor David Kerr, which has been welcome and supported, as I understand it, by most, if not all, parties in the chamber.

Secondly, there are clearly difficult issues, particularly in relation to the perception of the services that are available, when these difficult decisions are made. However, we need to move from a situation in which services are so dispersed that we lose medical staff because they cannot develop their specialism to the right extent, and in which people do not get the care that they require in or as near to their local community as possible. More and more forms of emergency care in particular are available and appropriate to be delivered more locally—that is precisely what will happen in this case. At the same time, we are ensuring that the more difficult specialist work that is required is able to be handled by specialist staff in the proper locations.

On the other issues that Euan Robson raised, the Minister for Health and Community Care will be happy to look into them and discuss them further with him.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2372)

I meet the secretary of state regularly to discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

Will the First Minister join me in congratulating the renewables industry, which is set to produce 18 per cent of Scotland's electricity by the end of next year, meeting the Executive's target three years early?

Yes. When I first started to push up our targets on renewables—which subsequently were pushed up even further, I think, by my colleague Mr Finnie—there were those in Scotland who said that it was impossible to meet them and that we were being over-optimistic. There are those, of course, who opposed many of the measures that we introduced or supported to help us meet that target. They will be remembered for that and for their inconsistencies. I hope that the Greens remember them, too, in any discussions that they might be having. [Laughter.] The success with which we have moved in this direction, with the right energy policy for Scotland, should spur us on even further.

I thank the First Minister, but I had hoped that he would give a little bit more praise to the industry. It is a question of giving praise where it is due. I am sure that the First Minister will share my delight at the industry's projection that the majority of Scotland's electricity can be generated from renewables by 2020. Does he agree that, regardless of waste issues and energy reviews, that projection demonstrates that renewable electricity can more than replace the electricity that currently is generated by Scotland's nuclear power stations?

I think that we have to make these decisions in a very measured way. We have to ensure first that we continue to maximise the energy that is produced in Scotland from renewable sources, but we also need to ensure that we have a secure energy supply in Scotland for both families—[Interruption.] Scottish National Party members can shout and not care about families if they like, but the energy supply to the homes of Scots is an important subject, as is the energy supply to Scottish business. The energy review needs to take account of all those factors.

That said, I believe that we can go further. I congratulate the industry on its efforts. The efforts of the industry in Scotland have been outstanding. The efforts of, and the enterprise that is shown by, those who are still emerging in the industry are equally outstanding. In fact, only last week, Shell's national livewire awards recognised a company from Lanarkshire that is involved, I think, in marine energy technology and recognised that that company is ahead of its competition throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

I believe that we can go even further in marine energy, in which we have a massive natural resource, and in micro-renewables, in which we have significantly more potential than is currently recognised. I hope that the Parliament and this devolved Government will continue to lead the way in partnership with the industry.

On a completely different subject, will the First Minister join me in welcoming the members of Lanarkshire health united? Does he agree with them and Tom Clarke, his colleague, that it would be folly to close any accident and emergency unit in Lanarkshire? Does he, like me, deplore the letter from Dr John Reid to Lanarkshire NHS Board calling for the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Hairmyres hospital? Does the First Minister not agree that Lanarkshire needs three accident and emergency units and that the health board should act accordingly?

I am always happy to welcome people from Lanarkshire to the Parliament. I think that they would welcome Alex Neil's comments a bit more if he had submitted his own response to the consultation in Lanarkshire when it was taking place.

---

Water

To ask the First Minister what discussions have taken place on the future of water provision in Scotland. (S2F-2360)

There are continuing discussions between the Executive and industry stakeholders about providing customers with high-quality water services at the lowest reasonable cost. Our plans will increase the standards for customers, reduce leakage and ensure that Scottish Water provides strategic capacity where it is required to support new housing and economic developments throughout Scotland. All of that will be achieved with average charges falling in real terms when they are rising by an average of 18 per cent elsewhere.

I remind the Parliament that I am a Scottish Labour Party and Co-operative Party MSP.

Does the First Minister agree that it is imperative that Scottish Water remains in public ownership, and that there are many forms of public ownership, including co-operative and mutual models, that enshrine democratic ownership and control? Does he also agree that if, in future, there is any requirement to change the way in which Scottish Water operates, it will be important to maintain a level playing field? Will he guarantee that resources will be made available to ensure that the feasibility of a range of common-ownership models, including the mutual option, is fully explored and understood?

The current significant improvements in Scottish Water's work—the improvements that have been made over recent years and those that are clearly in the plans for its next programme—show its success under its current form of ownership and management. At the same time, it is important that we continue to press ahead with changes to ensure greater efficiencies, speedier delivery and better customer relationships than there are even now.

There are no current plans to change Scottish Water's status and no current plans for a review. I certainly hope that, should anybody undertake a review, they would consider the mutual option as well as all the others.

The First Minister will be aware of the House of Lords report that draws attention to the lack of planning for the adequate provision of potable water in England and Wales. Does he agree that we also need to address that matter, as Scotland might be able to help provide water for the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the rest of the world if we plan for it now?

The significant change to Scottish Water's programme will ensure that the ambitions of this devolved Government, local authorities and private companies in Scotland to expand housing provision can be fulfilled by expanding the water and sewerage network appropriately. That is an important change. It has been welcomed and we intend to deliver it. It is also important that Scotland continues to set very high standards in the co-operative relationships that must exist between housing development and water services development.

I will leave the subjects of our relationship with the English water companies, the supply of water in England and the potential for the sale of water from north to south for debate another day.

The First Minister is happy with the structure of Scottish Water at present, but is he happy that customers pay 86p of every £1 that Scottish Water spends on capital developments? Is he prepared to enable Scottish Water to have far greater borrowing powers in the market within the public sector?

The figures that the Scottish National Party uses on this matter have not been proven by anybody, apart from those who are close to the party, so they must be taken with a serious pinch of salt. The reality is that Scottish Water has introduced greater efficiencies. Its price increases are significantly less in real terms than they were previously and in relation to price rises elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The current arrangements for Scottish Water have improved efficiency and delivery, but the body needs to go further, which is the point that I made earlier. However, the arrangements will not be improved by the regular calls from the SNP for less money to be available to Scottish Water. We have had various calls over the years from Mr Mather and others to freeze water charges and therefore to make less money available for the sort of important developments that SNP members, particularly Mr Swinney, call for regularly.

---

Tuition Fees (Part-time Students)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had in respect of tuition fees for part-time students. (S2F-2364)

The levels of tuition fees for part-time students in Scotland are not regulated by ministers and are therefore a matter for individual institutions. However, ministers have frequent formal and informal discussions with principals and directors of Scotland's higher education institutions and colleges covering a wide range of issues. As part of our funding-of-learners review we are examining existing support for part-time students.

Does the First Minister agree that having fees for part-time students but not for full-time students is a form of discrimination against part-time students, who often have no other option in pursuing their education? Earlier this week, an Executive spokesman said that consultation on the issue will continue during 2006. Is the First Minister prepared to go a step further and commit to making a decision on the matter this year?

We will make a decision when the review is complete and when we have had a chance to analyse all the evidence. That is the right way in which to make policy. We do not have a system in Scotland in which everybody who is a part-time student pays fees, because people can apply for fee waivers, depending on their income. Of course, many part-time students fall into the appropriate category. It would be wrong to suggest that all part-time students in Scotland pay fees, because the fee-waiver system works to the advantage of those who need it most. However, it is important to remember that everything costs money. If we abolished the system entirely, that would have a cost. If that is what the Scottish National Party proposes, it must be honest about that during next year's elections. It should say which budget the money would come from in the education system, which college courses would have to go to pay for the measure and which other matters might be affected.

---

Children (Early-years Support)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will improve support for children in their early years. (S2F-2368)

We are taking forward a range of policies to improve services for children in their early years. In particular, we are increasing support for sure start Scotland, further increasing funding of the child care strategy and working on improvements in the quality of services through the review of the early- years and child care workforce. The Education Committee's report on early years has made an important contribution to the debate on future policy development. Ministers are considering its recommendations.

I am glad that the First Minister acknowledges the importance of the Education Committee's report. I recognise the work that the Executive is doing to improve early-years facilities in Scotland. The committee's report highlights particular concerns. Does the First Minister agree that Scotland must have an early-years sector that provides the highest-quality pre-school education and care; that sound services can enhance children's development and later educational attainment and identify and support vulnerable children and families; and that the sector can help to combat poverty, promote social inclusion and support the continuing growth of the economy? Does the First Minister agree that the single most important factor in improving quality in the early-years sector is raising skill levels in the workforce? In that light, when is the Executive likely to publish the results of the review of the early-years workforce?

The Minister for Education and Young People tells me that the results will be published soon. I hope that his definition of soon and Mr Smith's definition of soon are similar. I am sure that the minister will be prepared to discuss the matter with Mr Smith following questions today.

It is important that we strive to improve the skills and career opportunities of those who work in the sector. Many committed people work in the sector, particularly younger and older women, who perhaps did not have full access to the educational opportunities at school that many of us enjoyed. With further qualifications and career development, those individuals could play a more significant role in the sector.

I am keen that we not only consider the overall range of services in the sector and continue to maintain our massive expansion of nursery education in these years of devolution, but ensure that those who work in the sector have fulfilling careers, that they are able to give all their potential to the young people whom they look after every day and that those young people—particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds—have the best possible start in life.

On the theme of investment in education, does the First Minister agree that the recent Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education report for St Andrew's secondary in the east end of Glasgow demonstrates that good leadership, partnership with parents and pupils and a commitment to excellence in achievement can, even in one of the most disadvantaged parts of Scotland, provide a quality of education that enables pupils to maximise their opportunities? Margaret Curran and I, and the staff at St Andrew's, extend a warm invitation to the First Minister to see at first hand the quality of work at that remarkable school.

The Minister for Parliamentary Business is shouting from the sidelines how proud she is of the school, because it is in her constituency, rather than Mr McAveety's.

I share Mr McAveety's sense of pride in the school and its achievements. It is a school that, according to many of the indicators, people might expect to be performing below the average. That is not an acceptable expectation for schools in Scotland, no matter which communities they are located in. St Andrew's secondary shows exactly what can be achieved through strong leadership, great teachers and support staff, the active engagement of parents and, of course, the hard work, dedication and ambition of the pupils themselves. I am sure that we all want to congratulate them and any other schools in similar circumstances that are striving to realise the ambitions of the parents and pupils and to ensure that those schools have just as good a chance to succeed as any other in Scotland.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that the First Minister will want to correct a factual inaccuracy. He said that I did not submit evidence on the accident and emergency review in Lanarkshire. If he checks the record, he will see that I was a signatory to the written evidence presented by Lanarkshire health united—[Interruption.]

Order.

We will need to excuse the ignoramuses.

I have also submitted oral evidence directly to Lanarkshire NHS Board. I will accept the First Minister's apology.

I am not responsible for the answers of the First Minister. However, Mr Neil, you have had the opportunity to put the matter on the record.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, but that was a direct challenge and it deserves a response. With tens of thousands of pounds of parliamentary expenses, an office support staff and all his experience, if Alex Neil could not write his own letter to Lanarkshire NHS Board he should be ashamed of himself.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—