Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-670)
Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland, which is enjoying substantial support among the Scottish population.
This week, I will ask the First Minister about obesity. It is a challenge that America and Scotland share: the United States is top of the global league of fat nations and we in Scotland are second. Why did the SNP Government brief at the weekend that it had agreed to break its manifesto promise to deliver two hours of quality physical education for every pupil in Scotland?
Wendy Alexander should not believe everything that she reads in the papers. Reports that we intend to scrap that target are completely unfounded, which should make her next question rather interesting.
It is interesting that the Government's official spin doctor announced on Sunday that
I am delighted that Wendy Alexander wants to claim the credit for Scottish National Party initiatives. She will certainly have more success in doing that than in claiming credit for the Labour Party's policies, which nobody supports.
It was not just the Government's official spokesperson. Let us try the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities education spokesperson, who is a member of the SNP. She said:
The difficulty with Wendy Alexander reading out her third question is that she cannot take into account the answer to her first question. I repeat it again for her benefit. Reports over the weekend that we intend to scrap the existing target are completely unfounded. For her benefit and for the benefit of Labour members, I point out once again that investment in this area is increasing by an extra £40 million over three years. Will Wendy Alexander also want to claim the credit for that?
I thank the First Minister for his answer. I have no further questions, because he has changed his mind and he has made a promise. My job for today was to secure the U-turn. We have secured the U-turn and his promise is now to stick to that position.
There was no question, First Minister.
Presiding Officer—[Interruption.]
Order. There was no question, and therefore there is no need for an answer.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I shall not ask the First Minister about obesity—no doubt to our respective mutual relief.
I hope to see the Secretary of State for Scotland on 24 April at the reception that we are jointly hosting for the Forward Edge of the Battle Area veterans charity at Edinburgh Castle.
This weekend, the First Minister will be at Heriot-Watt University, for less of a spring conference than an SNP love fest. Spring used to be just for the birds; now it is birds, bees, nats and all other forms of winged life. I am sure that when he is there, the First Minister will meet some of the 200,000 higher education students who are currently domiciled in Scotland. How many of them currently pay council tax?
As Annabel Goldie well knows, it depends where they are staying. Among those who will benefit most from a move from the council tax to a local income tax are those on low earnings. It may come as news to Annabel Goldie that students tend to be on low earnings—if, indeed, they are earning anything at all. Further, given Annabel Goldie's new-found concern for the welfare of Scottish students, perhaps she will realise that she should have backed the Scottish National Party and its allies in re-establishing the principle of free education in Scotland. That was welcomed by every student at Heriot-Watt and elsewhere.
Let me make clear what the First Minister desperately wants to keep hidden. In government, the Conservatives ensured that students were exempt from council tax. Last year, the First Minister spoke of the financial barriers facing students, many of whom have to work their way through their studies and many of whom pay income tax. When the First Minister is at Heriot-Watt University, what excuse will he give students for landing them with a new financial barrier—the SNP's nationalist tax on learning? How is that fair?
People should pay based on their ability to pay. People with earnings should pay taxation; people with no earnings or low earnings should pay either no taxation or extremely low taxation. Every student from Scotland will benefit from the abolition of the graduate endowment. Annabel Goldie and her party once opposed but now support the Government's moves to abolish the graduate endowment. Its abolition is welcomed by every student in Scotland. That—and fair taxation—is what the students of Scotland, and indeed the people of Scotland, widely support.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-672)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
How does the First Minister know that his list of efficiency savings of £3 billion over the next three years will not lead to cuts in public services?
The estimate of efficiency savings is based on an analysis of what it is reasonable to expect from the public sector. Some people—for example Wendy Alexander, in her "hungry caterpillar" speech—felt that the efficiency target was inadequate, modest and unambitious.
The truth is that most of the First Minister's efficiency savings document is simply blank space. Has he seen what is missing? For the £1 billion of savings in health boards, his document says that decisions on efficiencies and cuts are best taken locally; that is it. Another £1 billion is unexplained in local government and universities and colleges; there is no information. The Scottish Prison Service said that it was too busy even to fill in the form. It said that it was
A 2 per cent target for efficiency savings across the public sector is perfectly reasonable and achievable. Many local authorities and, indeed, health boards have more than achieved that over the past few years. If we are to build the framework of a public sector that is efficient in delivering services for the people of Scotland—I am sure that Nicol Stephen supports that—it must be done efficiently. Local authorities in Scotland understand that, as do organisations throughout the public sector; most people throughout the western world understand it. I do not quite know whether the Liberal Democrats understand it yet, but it is perfectly achievable and a perfectly understandable perspective.
Is the First Minister as surprised as I am that the Foreign Office apparently expects that Scottish taxpayers should pick up the policing costs for the 2005 G8 summit, which was held in my constituency? The bill is for £600,000. Does the First Minister agree that the outgoing Executive should have made a far better job of protecting Scotland's interests, and can he now do anything to ensure that, whatever happens, policing in Tayside is not adversely affected as a result of that bill?
I have a disagreement with Roseanna Cunningham: I know that the previous Administration, under Cathy Jamieson and Tom McCabe, resisted those unjust demands from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. Although the previous Administration and the Labour Party were not often prepared to stand up for Scotland, Roseanna Cunningham should, like me, applaud and congratulate them on the one, isolated example that we have found in which Labour ministers were not willing to shut up for London but were prepared to try to speak up for the people. It seems passing strange that that was found out only in the examination of the documents and that there was no public discussion of the unfair charges that London attempted to impose in the run-up to the last election. Roseanna Cunningham can be absolutely sure that this Government will stand up for Scotland at every available opportunity.
On the point about standing up for the people of Scotland, during this morning's debate on support for the voluntary sector, your favourite minister, Mr Maxwell, supported by Rob Gibson, expressed the view that your strategy was addressing the problem that the voluntary sector was "growing like Topsy" and a lot of it was "dross". Do you agree? How do you intend to pursue the policy?
I do not have favourite ministers, Ms Lamont.
The voluntary sector does a wonderful job in applying services throughout Scotland. That is exactly why we have substantially increased funding to the voluntary sector. We believe that its work is invaluable.
The First Minister is aware of the shameful decision by Labour and Lib Dem councillors in North Ayrshire to remove wardens from sheltered housing—a decision that impacts directly on 573 elderly and often frail and vulnerable people. No consultation was carried out of the residents concerned before the decision was imposed. That contravenes North Ayrshire Council's tenant participation strategy.
Ask a question, please.
Does the First Minister agree with the Minister for Communities and Sport that North Ayrshire Council has thereby breached section 54(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001? Does he concur that wardens should not be removed from sheltered housing without full consultation of residents?
I am sure that all local authorities in Scotland will want to think carefully about how they apply their services. I am sure that the enthusiasm of the leadership of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and many of our local authorities for the new concordat and shared outcome agreements will bring about a step change in relationships and the delivery of services.
The First Minister should go and check the figures that he quoted.
Briefly, please.
Local government is also cutting and closing residential care facilities for our elderly people. Are those the efficiency savings that the SNP Government wants?
Cathie Craigie should reread the hungry caterpillar speech by her leader, which accused my colleague John Swinney of having too modest targets for efficiency savings across the public sector in Scotland. I am not sure whether the hungry caterpillar is part of the new socialist ideology that Wendy Alexander put forward at the Labour conference.
Elections 2007 (Value for Money)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers it and local authorities received value for money in the running of the 2007 elections. (S3F-693)
There were some really good outcomes from the 2007 elections, but of course there are concerns. There were additional costs for the elections from the introduction of the single transferable vote system and electronic counting. The Scottish Government's element was £6 million, compared with about £400,000 in 2003.
Does the First Minister agree that the company DRS, which failed manifestly to provide the service that it was contracted to provide, should be obliged to rebate properly local authorities and the Scottish Government for its failure? Does he agree that, having failed to make timely, fair and effective arrangements for the people of Scotland to elect their councils and Government, the Scotland Office should agree to transfer responsibility for elections to this Parliament to the Scottish Government, preferably as a last act before dissolving itself entirely?
I understand that a number of local authorities have successfully pursued compensation claims by invoking penalty clauses in their individual contracts with DRS.
First ScotRail Franchise
To ask the First Minister what discussions took place between Transport Scotland and key transport stakeholders prior to the decision to extend the First ScotRail franchise. (S3F-676)
The extension was the activation of a contractual provision in the existing franchise. That provision has existed since the franchise was let, following extensive consultation and competition in 2004. The extension will enable delivery of some of the key objectives of the national transport strategy and "Scotland's Railways", which were also subject to widespread consideration and consultation.
Does the First Minister agree that the decision to extend the ScotRail franchise could be described as
All processes on the announcement during the recess were observed, including informing Parliament. The extension of the franchise was both commercially sensitive and share sensitive, as Karen Whitefield should understand. I remind Karen Whitefield that her party was in power in 2004—it was not immediately obvious from her question that she remembered or understood that. Perhaps I should have said that in the dark days of 2004, her party was in power.
Where were you?
Order.
The benefits from the mechanism to deliver commitments and existing schemes out to 2014 in the extension of the franchise are clear. That will mean the extension of express services between Edinburgh and Glasgow; additional early-morning services to allow passengers from Dumfries, Gourock, Ayr, Kilmarnock, Dunblane, Perth and Kirkcaldy to connect to services arriving in London before noon; a community fund to encourage small businesses and communities to make the best use of train station buildings; and improved services from Inverness to Wick and Tain. It also means a profit cap in the franchise contracts, which will guard against windfall profits by the franchisee. If Karen Whitefield tells me that she would have allowed windfall profits, I will have to compare that against the socialist commitment of new Labour.
The First Minister read out a string of improvements in the central belt, which are to be welcomed. However, has Scotland shrunk under the SNP? What improvements to rail services will be made in Gordon? For example, will there be a new railway station in Kintore?
The £70 million cashback will be reinvested by the Government in public services.
Is the First Minister aware that the Auditor General told the Audit Committee yesterday that he was not even informed of, let alone consulted on, the extension of the ScotRail franchise? Were the First Minister and the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change aware that Audit Scotland is conducting an inquiry into the allocation of rail franchises? Why was the Auditor General not consulted?
The processes around the announcement were fully observed. The commercially sensitive and share-sensitive nature of the contract extension was well understood. The provision to extend the contract was contained in the original franchise. I think that Lord George Foulkes should, like the rest of us, welcome the fact that we will avoid windfall profits for the franchisee and be able to reinvest £70 million across the rail network in Scotland.
Physical Education (Schools)
To ask the First Minister how physical education is being developed in Scottish schools. (S3F-697)
I am delighted to be able to answer that question.
Wendy Alexander might have run out of questions, but I have not.
As I said, reports over the weekend that we intend to scrap the existing target are completely unfounded.
Who was it?
There will be £40 million extra to tackle obesity. That extra money, which I am sure that the Conservative party—in all its forms—is prepared to support, is applied to not only childhood obesity, but obesity in all of us.
Give us a name.
Order.
It was him!
How many school playing fields have been sold off or otherwise disposed of in the past 20 years and are, therefore, unavailable for physical recreation purposes?
A substantial number of schools have been sold off. Like me, Ian McKee knows the relationship between the disposal of the playing fields and the private finance initiative/public-private partnership form of funding that is so beloved of the Labour Party. That is exactly why moving to the not-for-profit distribution model is an excellent advance on everything that has gone before.
How many new PE teachers will be required to deliver the target that the First Minister has committed himself to today? How many additional school facilities will be required? When will every child in Scotland receive a minimum of two hours of PE per week under this Government?
In eight years, the Labour Party did not meet that particular target. I refer Karen Gillon to the historic concordat with local authorities around Scotland. She will read exactly how the single outcome agreements will bring about improvement in public services that were undreamed of in the dark years of Labour-Liberal control.
That concludes First Minister's question time.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When questions are asked in the chamber, it is very important that members receive an answer. The First Minister fails to answer specific questions. When will you hold the First Minister to account for the answers that he gives in the chamber?
It is for the chamber to hold the First Minister to account, as I have said many times—it is not for me, as Presiding Officer.
Meeting suspended until 14:00.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time