Plenary, 15 Nov 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, November 15, 2007

Official Report 697KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-266)

Later today, I will chair the Glasgow 2014 strategic group of partners that have worked together to win the Commonwealth games for Glasgow. We will discuss the first steps in the delivery of a great Commonwealth games for all of Scotland. Since we are on the feel-good factor, this is a good chance for the Parliament to unite to wish Alex McLeish and his squad all the best for Saturday at Hampden. [Applause.]

I share all those sentiments, although they may be the only sentiments that the First Minister and I share today.

The SNP made many promises to the people of Scotland—promises that it knew it could not keep. The SNP promised communities 1,000 new police—that is not happening. The SNP promised parents class sizes of 18—that is not happening. The SNP promised first-time buyers a grant—that is not happening. The SNP promised students that it would dump their debt—that is not happening. The SNP promised families a 50 per cent increase in nursery education—that is not happening. It promised those who care about the environment annual climate change targets—that is not happening. The First Minister promised so much in May. This is more than broken promises—it is a breach of trust. Why did the First Minister knowingly make promises to the people of Scotland that he knew he would not keep?

All those things are happening under the Scottish National Party. Significantly, not one of them would have happened under the Labour Party or its ally. I remind Wendy Alexander that bridge tolls are going today, back-end fees are going, prescription charges have been abolished, accident and emergency departments have been saved and the council tax will be frozen over the next three years. Perhaps she would like to mention those measures.

I sometimes wonder whether the First Minister lives in a parallel universe, because not only are his promises unravelling but the budget is unravelling. Yesterday Mr Swinney held up a piece of paper from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Today I would like to do the same. The paper that I am holding up is also from COSLA. It makes clear that in the budget there is not a penny more to reduce class sizes, not a penny more for new schools and no extra money for physical education and sports facilities. I know that the First Minister likes to avoid yes or no answers, but parents across Scotland need to know. Let me ask one simple question. Does every local authority in Scotland have to make year-on-year progress towards achieving the SNP's pledge to reduce class sizes—yes or no?

Yes. It is item 4 in the agreement with COSLA, which states:

"Local government will be expected to show year on year progress toward delivery of the class size reduction policy."

The First Minister did not answer the question. Must every individual local authority make progress? The First Minister does not want to talk about the detail of his budget, but he had better get used to that in the coming weeks.

I have with me another piece of paper, from the centre for public policy for regions, which provides an interesting independent analysis of yesterday's budget. It makes it clear that funding for local doctors, dentists, pharmacists and opticians is forecast to fall by more than 2.6 per cent a year under the current Government. There are cuts in dental services, cuts in general practitioner surgeries, cuts in the central heating programme, cuts in support for vulnerable children and cuts in affordable homes. The budget is one of not just broken promises, but betrayal and real cuts. Why is the SNP cutting budgets that matter to millions of Scots?

Those budgets are going up, which could be symbolised by the Scottish National Party's commitment to have a new dental school in Aberdeen.

Referring to the centre for public policy for regions might not be Wendy Alexander's strongest point—the same institute said that Labour had 70 uncosted promises in the election campaign.

The First Minister disowns figures that are in his budget. As we expected, he has sat there sneering and laughing at the way in which the people of Scotland have been cynically let down.

In all seriousness, I say to the First Minister that I remember Donald Dewar agonising for days when he thought that he might have once inadvertently misled the chamber. Time and again, the First Minister has asserted in this place that he would keep his promises. He has not done so. Parliament and the people have been misled. Will he finally have the strength of character and the personal decency to own up to a breach of trust and admit that he has not kept his promises and that he has let the people down?

I have a list of supportive quotations from people and organisations the length and breadth of Scotland endorsing the Scottish National Party's budget.

I watched the Labour benches yesterday. When the agreement with COSLA was announced, Wendy Alexander looked gloom. When the business rates reduction was announced, Iain Gray looked even gloomer. When the council tax freeze was announced, Andy Kerr was fit to burst. Since it is to be a footballing weekend in Scotland, when John Swinney unveiled the budget, the SNP benches were over the moon and the Labour benches were sick as parrots.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-267)

I have no plans to do so at present.

Before the election, the SNP set out its spending plans in its document, "A platform for success." Specifically, there was to be an extra £24 million for drugs rehabilitation. After the election, however, we find in the draft budget not an extra £24 million, but a virtual freeze.

Significant resource has been allocated to dealing with alcohol abuse, but I had been encouraged to think that the First Minister was committed to political leadership on our drug abuse problem. To his credit, he has demonstrated willingness to progress the issue. However, it cannot progress without more resource. On that crucial issue that scars Scotland, why on earth has the First Minister caved in?

It is a crucial issue and an extremely serious question from Annabel Goldie. As regards the budget line, £3 million has been transferred to the health and well-being portfolio and the community justice services for drug-related services. Across the spending period, there will be a 13 per cent increase above inflation when all budgets are taken into account. I will be delighted to discuss those matters further with Annabel Goldie.

I am genuinely grateful for that clarification because, as a mere politician, I go with the text of the budget document, in which it is difficult to compare like with like.

The Scottish Conservatives treat the budget document as the start of the process, not the finished product. My party will analyse the draft budget line by line and measure it issue by issue, but the starting point is not encouraging. I will not rehearse the many quotations about the broken pledge on police numbers but, before the election, the First Minister, nailing his colours to the mast, made it plain that police numbers were a priority and that money was no object. Before the election, the Scottish National Party promised £78 million for 1,000 extra police but, after the election, that was the first budget to be cut and the first pledge to be broken. In other words, the pledge on police numbers was 1,000 plus, but now it is 500 perhaps.

Does the First Minister agree that the draft budget is not the finished article? When the Conservatives introduce proposals to fund more new police officers, assuming that we get the support of other parties in the Parliament, will the First Minister give them serious consideration or is his mind now closed on the issue?

I never have a closed mind. As Annabel Goldie has been keen to quote the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation at previous question times, I think that she will recognise their reactions. This week, they said:

"ACPOS welcomes the announcement by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice"

on police numbers. Joe Grant of the Scottish Police Federation said:

"This is a positive step in the right direction."

I will be delighted—

Oh!

Well, they would not have been saying that about the Labour Party, because there would have been no steps in any direction.

I will be delighted to discuss those matters with Annabel Goldie and I look forward to our meeting.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-268)

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

How much did Scotland's universities ask for from the spending review and how much did they get?

We are going to invest £5.24 billion in total to preserve the competitiveness and effectiveness of the further education and university sectors. Universities Scotland asked for an additional £168 million above inflation in the final year of the spending review. Even within the tightest spending settlement since devolution, the Government has delivered 50 per cent of that bid. On capital funding, in addition to the £100 million that has already been invested, we have exceeded the Universities Scotland bid. I would have thought that even the Liberal Democrats would welcome that.

The First Minister deliberately confuses capital and revenue funding. Universities Scotland asked him for on-going, year-to-year support and asked for £168 million to stay world class. It got £30 million. In fact, our universities and colleges get a real-terms cut next year.

In response to the budget, Universities Scotland has attacked the Government for being inconsistent with its economic strategy. Alex Salmond launched that strategy on Tuesday at the University of Glasgow, knowing that he would cut its budget the next day. Why, under his Government, do universities get a cut next year? They are left to fall behind their competitors. Why has the First Minister chosen to give our universities and colleges less than he has chosen to give to the rest of his Government? Why has he chosen to treat them so badly?

There is no such cut, as can easily be demonstrated, even to the Liberal Democrats. Nor did I confuse capital and revenue funding; I deliberately explained the difference.

Yesterday I sat where John Swinney is sitting and I watched Nicol Stephen. He had everything written out in advance for his interventions, and his second question today illustrates the problems of such inflexibility.

There are increases in real terms for our universities and colleges. There is a massive increase in capital investment and yesterday's budget plans were welcomed by Howard McKenzie from the Association of Scotland's Colleges and Sue Pinder, convener of the ASC's principals forum. If our colleges and universities welcome the Scottish National Party budget, why do the Liberal Democrats not?

Yesterday, Jackie Baillie asked Mr Swinney whether he will

"ignore the comments of Shelter Scotland, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, Scottish Churches Housing Action, and local authority chief housing officers when they say that next year's budget for new affordable homes has been cut by 6 per cent in real terms".—[Official Report, 14 November 2007; c 3348.]

The terms of her question were echoed by Iain Gray in the debate on the strategic spending review.

Aside from the fact that investment in affordable housing—

Question, please, Mr Gibson.

—will actually increase by a whopping 23.5 per cent over the next three years, is the First Minister not astonished that, within an hour of the spending review's publication, all the organisations mentioned had read, absorbed and discussed it and had collectively agreed to inform the Labour Party of their position? Or, like me, does he suspect that Ms Baillie, in the heat of the moment, decided to take the names of those organisations in vain in a desperate attempt—

That is enough, Mr Gibson.

—at undermining the good news that was contained in the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth's statement?

I certainly agree that members on the Labour benches were desperate yesterday and are desperate today.

The figure that Mr Gibson mentioned is absolutely correct: investment in affordable housing will go up by 23.5 per cent over three years. As that becomes understood, the welcome from Scottish housing organisations will be as warm for that move as it was for the excellent green paper that the Deputy First Minister introduced.

I suggest that Kenny Gibson read the press release from the organisations that he named, which actually contains that information. It is a matter of fact.

The SNP promised to match Labour's school building programme "brick for brick". However, where are the bricks for Dumbarton academy? This week, SNP-controlled West Dunbartonshire Council removed the school entirely from the schools regeneration project. Thirty million pounds has been wiped out at the stroke of a pen, and not a single brown penny will be spent on any school in Dumbarton. Will the First Minister personally ensure that generations of children in Dumbarton are not disadvantaged by that decision by providing the funds for a new school without delay?

On the specific issue, the offer is still open to that council. When Jackie Baillie has time to study the budget lines and the concordat with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, she will see not only capital spending commitments that match brick for brick, but a massive increase in the capital available in terms of investment to local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland.

The First Minister is aware of the escalating price of commercial and domestic fuel. In the Highlands, prices are running at between £1.08 and £1.10 a litre; as members will appreciate, they are probably much higher on the islands. What, under his Government's current powers, does the First Minister intend to do about the increasing burden of fuel prices on the Highlands and rural Scotland?

Vote independence!

I hear from behind me the suggestion that John Farquhar Munro might want to vote for independence and bring those powers under the province of this Parliament.

Throughout Scotland—in rural areas, in particular—fuel prices are having a severe impact on the country's competitive position. What is happening in oil-rich Norway, for example, contrasts hugely with what is happening in oil-rich Scotland. I share John Farquhar Munro's concern about the impact of those issues on Scotland's rural areas. I just wish that everyone in this Parliament was prepared to vote for the powers that would allow us to do something about them.

---

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has plans to propose changes to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. (S3F-278)

More than £17 million has been recovered from criminal assets using the provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. However, following the first meeting of the serious organised crime task force, we are actively looking at what improvements can be made and we will introduce proposals as soon as they are ready.

As we know, many of the proceeds of crime come from drug dealing. Given the recently announced proposals, what plans does the First Minister have to increase the seizure of criminal assets and to ensure that funding can made available to organisations such as the Dumbarton Road corridor addictions forum, which does great work in raising drugs awareness in Glasgow schools?

I agree with Bill Kidd that that organisation does great work. We already have £8 million from recovered assets to invest in young people. We are working with several organisations throughout the country to draw up specific funding proposals to increase the opportunities available. We will be in a position to announce plans soon. We are also considering ways to increase the value of assets seized. That includes identifying where changes to the legislation may be of help and how we can put more resources into recovery work. I hope that, if and when these changes to legislation are introduced, given the importance of the issue and given the great work that organisations such as the one that Bill Kidd mentioned do, they will be supported throughout the chamber.

On Tuesday, police in Lerwick seized heroin with a street value of £10,000. A 21-year-old man appeared from custody yesterday at Lerwick sheriff court. Local agencies recognise that there are some 400 heroin users in Shetland alone. Will the First Minister undertake to consider the resources that would be made available through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to local agencies, including the police, to tackle the problem? Does he recognise that some £60,000 of heroin has been discovered in Shetland since September alone through the action of local agencies including Northern Constabulary?

I accept the points that Tavish Scott makes, which I think would command general support, in terms of both how the proceeds are distributed among worthy and deserving organisations and how we can increase the assets that are recovered to ensure that remedial action is taken to address the scourge of drugs throughout our country.

The First Minister will be aware that the considerable success of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has been achieved largely by the activities of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. He will also be aware that the director general of that body, Mr Pearson, resigned prematurely earlier this week. In the light of the statements that were made after Mr Pearson's resignation, does the First Minister agree that it might be necessary to review and revisit the legislation that deals with the governance of the SCDEA?

We had a discussion at Cabinet on Tuesday on that subject. Following that discussion, I am not certain that legislative change is required. However, we have the matter under close inspection and review. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice is considering the matter at present and, of course, we will report to Parliament if any changes are required.

---

Police (Funding)

To ask the First Minister what further funding will be committed to additional policing resources following the recent terrorist attack on Glasgow airport. (S3F-275)

This year the Scottish Government is providing in excess of £12 million in 100 per cent grant funding to Scottish police forces specifically for counter-terrorism purposes. We are also reviewing with the police what additional resources will be needed to improve the ability to fight terrorism in the future.

All members in the chamber would have agreed with the First Minister when he said on 2 July that the response—including the response by Strathclyde Police—to the Glasgow airport attack was hugely impressive. Taking into consideration the huge commitment that was shown by Strathclyde Police, will the First Minister give his commitment to provide the £1.5 million that Strathclyde Police needs for the additional resources that it required during that period?

I certainly appreciate the outstanding job that Strathclyde Police did in handling the incident at Glasgow airport on 30 June. However, as with any claim for additional funds, the Scottish Government has to be clear exactly what the funds are required for. We are considering the request from Strathclyde Police for reimbursement of the costs relating to policing and we will reply to the police shortly.

The First Minister will be aware of yesterday's pledge by Prime Minister Gordon Brown to do more to increase security at airports. Has the Scottish Government been offered any financial assistance by the United Kingdom Government in its fight against terror attacks, which is a UK-wide operation, given that the recent incident at Glasgow airport cost Strathclyde Police more than £1.7 million in overtime and expenses?

The police and other enforcement agencies co-operate daily to ensure that Scotland is as safe as the rest of the United Kingdom from the threat of terrorism. The issue is reserved, but Sandra White can be sure that we will work closely with the UK Government in this area and that we will pursue the need for additional resources as necessary.

I know that the First Minister will agree that to fight terrorism we need enough police officers. Now that the promise on police numbers has been watered down to 500 new recruits and 500 redeployed and retained officers, will the First Minister tell us how many of the 500 will be redeployed and how many will be retained from the 2,300 officers who are due to retire over the next four years? Will he give us some idea of his proposals and timetable for how he will deliver that retention of officers?

Margaret Smith is confusing the terms recruitment, retention and redeployment. I ask her to look at the comments from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation this week. She should reflect on the matter, as she should have done yesterday. We have had to increase recruitment substantially because of the position we were left in by the Liberal and Labour Executive.

Will the First Minister think a bit more about the question that he was just asked? He has watered down his commitment to provide 1,000 extra police officers. Will he break down the 500 officers that he has now promised? Will they come from new recruitment or from retention? Surely a Government that has spent many weeks poring over the figures for the budget knows how it will manage that pledge of 500 officers.

The 500 is recruitment. The member must not believe the Labour Party's propaganda on the issue. Retention is necessary because 2,300 skilled police officers would otherwise be due to retire. The current scheme for retention has not done the job; that is why we are having a new scheme. Redeployment is important because, under the Labour Party, we had statistics such as only one in 13 police officers being on the front line. The member would do well to support the SNP's plans for recruitment, retention and redeployment.

As a reward for the most extraordinary persistence, I call Margo MacDonald.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. However, it is not a new thing. I was persistent yesterday, too, and I would prefer to ask the First Minister the question that I wanted to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth. I will just slip it in very quickly. I sincerely hope that we are thinking about capital city funding for the city of Edinburgh, because of its financial situation.

On the policing question, which the First Minister has answered—

In that case I can go straight to the First Minister.

I am sure that the finance secretary will be delighted to discuss with Margo MacDonald and the City of Edinburgh Council the points that she has raised. I also confirm that she has been persistent not just today and yesterday; she has been persistent all her adult life.

---

Nursery Teachers

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will fulfil its commitment to provide access to a fully qualified nursery teacher for every nursery-age child. (S3F-276)

I am sure that Hugh O'Donnell has read with great interest the concordat with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and would like to welcome it. It includes an agreement that local government will work with the Scottish Government to deliver access to a teacher for every child in pre-school as quickly as possible. Our budget will deliver 20,000 new teachers in training by 2011. That will help us to make year-on-year progress towards that and other commitments.

I know that Hugh O'Donnell is desperate to welcome the 20,000 new teachers in training—the highest number since devolution.

I thank the First Minister for that party-political broadcast.

There are 1,240 nurseries across Scotland that do not have access to a qualified teacher. The SNP manifesto promised that every pre-school child would have such access. The SNP budget yesterday, and the First Minister's comments about COSLA, commit only to working towards that goal. There has been no timescale and no detail. Can the Parliament have details on when and how the commitment will be met? Or is it yet another nursery rhyme for Scotland's schoolchildren from the SNP?

It is in point 5 of the agreement with COSLA.

I say as gently as I can to Hugh O'Donnell that party politics sometimes intrude into First Minister's question time. Far from working towards any of these commitments, the previous Administration—which Mr O'Donnell supported—gave us eight years of underachievement.

The First Minister referred to the delivery of 20,000 extra teachers. On 5 September, he said that the teachers who would be used to reduce class sizes in primaries 1 to 3 would be in place by 2011. Will he confirm that, when he said that, he knew that he and his ministers had previously been advised by officials that that could not be achieved by 2011?

Members will find that at point 4 of the agreement with COSLA, which I am sure Hugh Henry will be the first to acknowledge and support in his usual cheerful manner. Even Hugh Henry should welcome the fact that 20,000 new teachers will be in training to help us meet those commitments.

The First Minister is aware of the 100 parents, many of whose children are in pre-school, who signed a statement of support for the SNP's family-friendly policies. After yesterday's historic first SNP Government budget, do those 100 parents have reason for optimism?

Those parents and millions of others are part of the feel-good mood that is sweeping the country.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—