Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-464)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss important issues facing Scotland and the Scottish Parliament in 2004.
On the subject of top-up fees, the Scottish Parliament's Enterprise and Culture Committee said this morning:
There is no doubt that if the introduction of top-up fees and, therefore, additional income in England and, potentially, Wales ensured that universities south of the border were able to make greater resources available for certain research units through centralisation, to build new facilities or to attract more members of staff, that would have a direct impact on the university system in Scotland. However, partly because the proposals that will be put to the Westminster Parliament are not yet clear, their impact is not yet clear. That is why we are doing the sensible thing and are conducting a review to examine the potential impact of top-up fees and the solutions that might be appropriate for Scotland. That review has been welcomed across the sector, because it wants to engage with us rather than indulge in simple political debate.
That did not sound like a ringing endorsement of the Deputy First Minister.
The question is not whether any of us wants more money to go into Scottish higher education. If there is anyone in the chamber who does not want more resources to be available for Scottish higher education, they are not fit to be a member of the Scottish Parliament. We would all want to secure more resources for Scottish higher education. The issue is what is affordable and what is the right way to spend that money. The difference in the chamber is that we in the devolved Government continue to ensure that additional resources are available for Scottish higher education and are committed to its expansion and to the attainment of quality in the sector, while the SNP wanders round Scotland campaigning for tax cuts that would reduce the amount of money that is available for Scottish higher education and wants to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom and break up the links within the university sector, which would yet again reduce the amount of money that is available for Scottish higher education. That divide in the chamber is becoming increasingly clear.
Just like last week, when the questions get difficult, the First Minister starts ranting about other issues. That tells us all that we need to know.
Read the next sentence.
We will give Mr Wallace the whole lot if he wants it. The speech continued:
Hear, hear.
Mr Rumbles came in a little bit too quickly because the rest of that sentence goes like this:
I wonder what the SNP will be asking us to spend the money on tomorrow. Every day it is a different demand or a different request. That is a stupid way in which to try to do business.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-460)
I have no meetings scheduled with the Prime Minister early in the new year.
When the First Minister does get an opportunity to meet the Prime Minister, I hope that they will consider the lessons that all of us can learn from the proceedings of the Soham murder trial, which has implications right across the United Kingdom. One of the key lessons of that tragic and horrific case is the importance of the exchange of information between police forces not only in England but throughout the United Kingdom, as criminals do not respect boundaries. Can he assure me that, as the inquiry that David Blunkett announced proceeds, he will liaise with the Home Office to ensure that there is an effective system for the exchange of information throughout the United Kingdom?
I am sure that every member in the chamber will sympathise with the families who have had to suffer such a traumatic ordeal over the past very difficult months. I spoke with the Home Secretary this morning. I confirm that he is willing not only to receive evidence and information for his investigation into the co-ordination of information between police forces in England and Wales but to look at the issue from a UK perspective. He will do so to ensure that information is properly exchanged not only in England and Wales but between England and Wales and Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for what was not only a politically reassuring message but one that will offer considerable reassurance to the people of Scotland. I hope that he will agree that it is not rafts of new regulations that are needed to prevent such tragedies from occurring in Scotland but a sensible application of existing regulations. I hope that he will also share my concern about the increasing pressure that is being put on the police force, for the best of reasons, in respect of the background checks that take up an enormous amount of police time. Will he undertake to consult the Minister for Justice and our chief constables to ensure that any individual in Scotland who has a pattern of behaviour like Ian Huntley's could not slip through the intelligence net?
The Minister for Justice will certainly discuss that matter with the chief constables as part of her regular pattern of meetings. Peter Peacock has asked his officials in the Scottish Executive Education Department to give him an update on the different checks that are in place and on the progress in implementing some of the legislation that we have already agreed in Scotland.
Can the First Minister confirm that the European Commission indicated last Saturday its intention to submit a proposal to establish a European Union fisheries control agency and to site such an agency in Spain? Does he agree that the creation of a central agency runs counter to our desire for regionalisation of the common fisheries policy and that it will lead to the impression being given that Spain has undue influence over EU fishing policy? What action has he taken to raise this very serious matter with his colleague the Foreign Secretary?
The proposal to have a Europe-wide fisheries agency is not new, but it has not previously been taken forward with any haste at the level of the European Union. If such an agency were to be a centralising force on the common fisheries policy, it would run counter to the policy that we have supported and argued for and are arguing for again in Brussels this week, which is for there to be more regional management of the fisheries of Europe. Therefore, we are expressing serious concerns not only about the proposal but about its location in a member state that has at times been in direct competition with Scotland and the United Kingdom over fisheries policy. We have made those representations to the Foreign Secretary and we intend to continue the discussion with him in the months ahead.
Does the First Minister support Fife NHS Board's proposals to cut 37 nursing posts and to make further cuts to physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy? Will he explain the impact of the proposals on waiting times and health care in Fife? Will he now order an inquiry into the management of Fife NHS Board, which has lost the confidence of the people of Fife?
I have not seen such proposals and in the past when Ms Marwick has raised such issues in the chamber in relation to Fife NHS Board, her claims have regularly been shown to be grossly exaggerated. If what she suggests has any basis in fact, the Minister for Health and Community Care will write to her as soon as possible to clarify the situation.
Nursery Nurses (Salaries)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's position is on the average nursery nurse's salary being a quarter of an MSP's and one sixth of a minister's salary and what the Executive's response is to nursery nurses' industrial action to secure a salary increase. (S2F-485)
As I have said before in the chamber and elsewhere, nursery nurses have a key role to play with other early-years workers in providing the best possible opportunities for our children's development. The pay negotiations for nursery nurses are a matter between the employers and the trade unions that represent the employees. I am pleased that deals have been agreed in some parts of the country and urge all those still involved in negotiations—or who are not yet at the table—to reach a speedy conclusion.
I raised the case of Scotland's nursery nurses with the First Minister more than a month ago. At that time, he refused to intervene on their behalf. They are still compelled to take industrial action in pursuit of their just claim. Will he at least state today that Scotland's nursery nurses deserve a national salary, a national grading system and a national career structure, or does Scotland's First Minister believe that a nursery nurse in Aberdeen is worth £1,000 a year more than a nursery nurse in South Lanarkshire? If so, why?
I respect the agreement that has been reached between the employers and the trade unions, which has led to a situation in which there are now local negotiations on the matter. It is important that those local negotiations be seen through to a proper conclusion in each part of Scotland, and I urge all those who are involved in them in each area of Scotland to ensure that they continue—where they are not taking place, they should be. The sooner negotiations come to a conclusion, the sooner everybody's salary will be able to improve because, throughout the country, where deals have been struck, salaries have increased at above the rate of inflation.
The First Minister is dodging the question. The deals that have been struck in Aberdeen and South Lanarkshire value a nursery nurse in Aberdeen £1,000 a year more than one in South Lanarkshire. Nursery nurses meet national targets, have national qualifications and deliver on national responsibilities, so will he state today that the nursery nurses of Scotland deserve a national deal, instead of being thrown to the 32 winds for each local authority to come up with a different deal? Does he agree that the union that represents the nursery nurses—Unison—is right to pursue a national deal, or does he support the local deals that are being cobbled together, which mean that a nursery nurse in one part of the country is worth less than a nursery nurse in another part of the country?
The single-status agreement, to which the employers and the unions signed up, endorsed the move towards local negotiations. I, for one, will not second-guess the decision of the trade unions that set up that agreement, which ensures that local negotiations should take place. Where such negotiations are not taking place, they should be. Negotiations should take place in good faith and produce results that suit the demands on nursery nurses in the area and the responsibilities that are agreed in their contracts. If that is the way ahead that the unions and the employers have agreed, that is exactly what should happen in every part of Scotland.
Does the First Minister agree that nursery education is every bit as important as primary and secondary education, that attitudes to the contrary must change and that, if they do change, progress can surely be maintained?
Nursery education—in fact, the provision of child care more generally—is vital in ensuring that we have provision that helps mothers and, at times, fathers to get to their work and have their children properly looked after. It is also important to try to even out the inequalities that exist in Scotland at a very young age and to ensure that young people and children have the best possible start in life. I warmly welcome the conversion of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and others to that cause.
I understand the fact that, as the First Minister has said before, the current dispute must be settled by the employers and the union that represents nursery nurses. Does he agree that this issue highlights not only the importance that the Government and the Scottish Executive place on the pre-five sector in challenging inequality, but the gap between men's and women's pay and the value—or, perhaps, the lack of value—that we place on work that is predominantly done by women? Will he reflect on how and at what stage a full review of the role, responsibilities and conditions of those in the pre-five sector could be carried out, because such a review would be in the interests not only of those who work in the sector, but of the families and communities that they serve?
As I have said before, there might be a time and place for a review in the future, but the current priority is to ensure that the local authorities and the unions implement speedily the agreement that has been reached nationally for local negotiations to take place and that the series of disputes be concluded before we consider what might be possible in future.
Public-private Partnerships
To ask the First Minister whether public-private partnerships continue to be an effective way of improving education and health provision. (S2F-484)
Yes, they do. Public-private partnerships help to deliver better public services, combining the best of public and private expertise, innovation and financing.
The First Minister will be aware that Dumfries and Galloway Council is about to submit revised proposals for upgrading its school estate using a public-private partnership agreement, for which the Scottish Executive had previously offered £103 million. In light of the problems that have recently been encountered by other local authorities and the concerns of some members of the work force, can he advise us whether the £103 million will remain available, if the council's proposals are acceptable? Could a similar level of investment be made available to the council by the Scottish Executive through any other mechanism?
I wish to clarify two things. First, it is important that all councils in Scotland, including Dumfries and Galloway Council, take advice on public-private partnership contracts when they are offered, and that they ensure that the best advice is used so as to implement an effective tendering process and, ultimately, agree a successful contract. Secondly, it is important that, when councils have prepared their final decisions, we assess them against the provision that will then be available, and that we then allocate an appropriate level of resources. We have indicated to councils throughout Scotland the level of resources that might be available to them, but each and every one of them needs to deliver the right number of new and refurbished schools for that resource. There has to be value for money for the Scottish taxpayer. If there is value for money for the taxpayer, approval will be given by the Executive.
Is the First Minister aware that, although there might be a prospect of another single bidder coming in to replace the collapsed Ballast consortium in East Lothian, books and computers are being withheld from schools? Is he aware that schools are having to appeal to the Scottish Qualifications Authority for special consideration, because of problems with continuous assessment? Is he aware that the prudential borrowing that is meant to be on offer from the Executive will not be in place until next April and that, even when it is in place, the schools fund that is available to councils—which is around £190 million—will not be available for prudential borrowing, although it will be available for PPP? Will he stop his ideological obsession with PPP, which is robbing our schools and services of the resources that they very much need? That is not value for money, and it is about time he woke up to that.
If there was ever a convoluted way of asking a question, it is to start off by admitting that a new bidder has been identified in East Lothian, and that the current problems there are being resolved by East Lothian Council, which I think we would all welcome, although it might disappoint some members because they can no longer make points about it. It is then to admit, in the second half of the question, that we are changing the rules of local authority borrowing to allow local authorities throughout Scotland to have larger capital programmes, to spend more money on schools and other services and to borrow more money on the markets of their own free will and under the prudential regime, which will allow them to make proper financial decisions, while at the same time accusing us of having an ideological obsession with only one method of financing. That is a ludicrous way to ask a question, and Fiona Hyslop is lucky that it even deserves a response.
Medium Secure Care Unit (Site Selection)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will intervene to ensure that the selection process for a site for a medium secure care unit for the west of Scotland is fair, transparent and robust. (S2F-465)
The Minister for Health and Community Care will consider carefully the report on that particular site selection process, which he expects to receive soon from the committee responsible. On today of all days, the need to ensure public safety is uppermost in people's minds. I reassure the Parliament that I take my responsibilities as First Minister in relation to applications to move mental health patients around Scotland with the utmost seriousness. In every case that crosses my desk, I err on the side of caution.
I thank the First Minister for that predictably inadequate answer. He will by now have received from the Paisley and Barrhead community action group a dossier that details the catalogue of inaccurate and out-of-date information, omissions, incorrect applications of weightings and benefits criteria and numerous inconsistencies in information that were used throughout the whole process. Not only the Paisley and Barrhead action group but East Renfrewshire Council, councillors of different parties, the Lanarkshire action groups, community councils, MPs of different parties and the Deputy Minister for Justice consider the process to be fundamentally flawed.
You must ask a question.
Is the First Minister aware of Mr Hugh Henry's letter of 10 December to John Ross, who is the chair of Dumfries and Galloway NHS Board? In that letter, Mr Henry says:
You must come to the point.
The letter calls for an independent review of the process. The Executive started the process—
You must put your question now.
When will the Executive take its obligations seriously and intervene in the process, which has been a shambles from start to finish?
I recognise that these are sensitive issues. In my days both as a councillor and as an MSP, I have taken such issues very seriously and I hope that everybody will do so. Where processes need to be improved, they should be improved. However, improving the process is not the same issue as some of the scaremongering that is going on.
As member for Hamilton North and Bellshill, I have two of the proposed locations in my constituency, but I participated in the scoring event last week, unlike Mr McFee, who would rather grandstand and talk to the press than participate in the process. Does the First Minister agree that any perception by the public of a haphazard decision-making process would undermine the ability of professionals to deliver the services that the public expect, especially services for those with mental health issues? Does he therefore agree that an independent review should be a requirement in any NHS consultation process so that the public can have confidence in it?
As I said at the beginning, I do not want to pre-empt the due consideration by the Minister for Health and Community Care of the report that he expects to receive from the group that is dealing with the matter in the west of Scotland. However, where there is stalemate or difficulty in reaching a decision, I believe that some independent element to the final decision would be helpful. I hope that that is being considered.
Pre-budget Statement Allocation
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will use the £47 million allocation for Scotland announced in the pre-budget statement to address the needs and concerns of council tax payers. (S2F-479)
Any additional resources available for the Scottish budget will be used to invest in Scotland's long-term interests and in ways that deliver value for money for Scottish taxpayers.
I am interested to hear that response. Gordon Brown clearly intended the money to reduce council tax levels in England. Given that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has already intimated that yesterday's financial settlement cannot guarantee that there will be no council tax increases in future, will the First Minister use the money for what Gordon Brown intended—the reduction of council tax?
We are in the extremely fortunate position in Scotland of not having many Tory councils. They are the problem in England that Gordon Brown has had to subsidise in order to bring down their council tax rises.
Does the First Minister agree that the concerns and needs of council tax payers in constituencies such as North East Fife are to see improvements in services such as roads, schools, public transport and policing? Does he therefore agree that the needs and concerns of council tax payers in Fife will be met by spending additional money on extra services and not on council tax cuts?
That is exactly the sort of debate that we need to have in Government and we will report to Parliament in due course. The money needs to be used to make the maximum impact on the people of Scotland and their services. It should not be thrown away on short-term measures or allocated on the spur of the moment in response to one committee report one morning, as Mr Swinney proposed earlier. We need to take a considered approach. We will do so in the new year and between now and then I wish everybody a very merry Christmas.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. Mr McMahon indicated in his question that he had participated in the scoring event. However, he refused to score and walked out of the event. Is it in order for him to mislead Parliament in that way?
That is not a point of order.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—
Next
Question Time