Plenary, 19 Nov 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, November 19, 2009

Official Report 688KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2018)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

This week, one of Scotland's leading think tanks reminded us of the First Minister's promise to raise Scotland's gross domestic product growth rate to the United Kingdom level by 2011. Is the First Minister going to keep that promise?

That is the target. I have to say that we did not expect in 2007 that the GDP of the United Kingdom would go into sharp decline—I do not think that anybody anticipated it. I certainly know that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer did not anticipate it, because he told us that he had "abolished boom and bust". In fact, he abolished just the boom bit. Nonetheless, we should be encouraged by the fact that the Scottish economy, despite the concentration on financial services of one of the great impacts of the recession, has actually had a fall in GDP that is slightly less than that for the rest of the UK. We should also be encouraged that employment in Scotland is higher, unemployment is lower and economic activity is higher. On that basis, I think that our target is the right one to have, and this Government is intent on achieving it.

In the First Minister's Brigadoon bunker in Bute house things may not be so bad, but the truth is that in the real world, under his Administration, we face a deeper recession and a slower recovery than the rest of the UK. The promise of matching Scotland's growth to that of the rest of the UK is just another broken promise, is it not? Two months ago, he was still promising to build a rail link to Glasgow airport. Business, trade unions and local government all agreed that that was just what the economy needed, so John Swinney cancelled it. When it comes to the economy, is the First Minister not all talk and no trousers?

Let us just tackle this nonsense and the argument that we are enduring a deeper recession than the rest of the United Kingdom. It is simply not true. From the first part of 2008, when the recession started in the UK, the decline in Scottish domestic product—gross value added—is slightly less than that of the UK as a whole. I do not claim that as a triumph, because it is the sharpest decline in living memory. However, I will just say to Iain Gray that, given the nature of the recession—for which the Labour Government in Westminster must accept some degree of responsibility—is it not significant that construction has done significantly better in Scotland, that the production industry has done significantly better and that the primary industries have done significantly better? Indeed, with the sole exception of financial services—for understandable reasons—much of the Scottish economy is proving incredibly resilient.

As far as the rail link to Glasgow airport is concerned, the solution lies in the Labour Party's hands. Let it restore the £160 million year-on-year cut in the Scottish capital budget; then we will be able to fulfil the programme that we intended to fulfil.

If the First Minister presents what is happening in Scotland's construction industry as an example of the success of his Government, he has lost touch with reality to a degree that even I find hard to believe.

The ridiculous Scottish Futures Trust has cost 25,000 construction jobs—that is the industry's figure—and cancelling the Glasgow airport rail link will cost another 1,300 jobs. If the First Minister cares in the slightest about growth in the Scottish economy, will he cancel the Scottish Futures Trust and reinstate the rail link?

I do not claim what has happened to the construction industry as an enormous success. It has had one of the heaviest falls in its output in history, but let us look at the exact figures. The Scottish construction industry has declined by 6.3 per cent. That is a savage decline, but that is with the Scottish Futures Trust coming in at present. The exactly comparable figure for the UK construction industry, without the Scottish Futures Trust, is a decline of 8.2 per cent. Will Iain Gray tell us why—despite the fact that the UK has managed to resist the idea that we should not in the future pay through the nose for private finance initiative projects—the decline in construction across the UK is greater than the decline in construction in Scotland, or does that rather inconvenient fact destroy his entire question?

The fact is this: the Fraser of Allander institute's report says that this is the first time since world war two that Scotland has done worse than the rest of the country in a recession. That is the difference that the SNP is making.

If Alex Salmond thinks that the 25,000 construction workers who are looking for work will be impressed by those figures, he is losing it. Indeed, the business community is saying that Alex Salmond is losing it, the trade unions are saying that he is losing it, economists are saying that he is losing it, his own party is saying that he is losing it and—yes—the people of Glasgow North East said that he is losing it big style last Thursday. Willie Bain, Scotland's newest member of Parliament, is sitting in the public gallery—that says it all. Alex Salmond—

I must press you for a question, Mr Gray.

Alex Salmond is losing it. It is time he started listening and it is time he accepted that he is the problem. When will he accept that he is the problem?

I think Iain Gray went on a bit long in that answer, but let me be generous and welcome Willie Bain to our proceedings and congratulate him on his success in Glasgow North East. I hope that he is not one of those people who go for a dual mandate in various Parliaments—[Interruption.]

Order.

I have a good memory and I remember welcoming with equal generosity the victor of the Glenrothes by-election to our proceedings just a year ago. I also remember Iain Gray being incredibly enthusiastic about that by-election victory. Six months later, the Scottish National Party wiped the floor with Labour in an election across Scotland—the European election—by a margin of 10 per cent.

I have heard a rumour that there might well be an election in six months' time in Scotland. We will see then whether Iain Gray has the same enthusiasm that he has today.

Lastly, I understand that we are also welcoming the Scottish Labour Party leader, Mr Jim Murphy, to our proceedings this afternoon. I hope that Iain Gray will accept that, when he says that he enjoys his election victory, I would not rob him of being content about that election success, for which I can easily congratulate the Labour Party. I can tell him, however—he should reflect on this—that many people, not just in the Labour Party but across Scotland, believe that with Iain Gray it is a question not of losing it but of never having had it in the first place.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I would ask the First Minister who he thinks should be the next manager of the Scottish football team, but I will leave that to Tavish Scott.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2019)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

I was alarmed and appalled when I discovered this week that, of 1,500 children who were admitted to the Royal hospital for sick children in Glasgow, more than 150 were suffering from malnutrition. That is a disgrace and an affront in modern-day Scotland. However, Government statistics that were recently obtained by the Conservatives claim that only 48 children across the whole of Scotland were admitted to Scottish hospitals suffering from malnutrition. Given the huge variation between those figures, and given that the figures cover only hospital admissions, can the First Minister tell me the true extent of child malnutrition in Scotland? If he cannot, why cannot he do so and what will he do to find out?

Several hundred thousand children in Scotland live in relative poverty. I will certainly investigate the malnutrition figures and try to reconcile the different figures that Annabel Goldie has given. Both the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government are committed to ending child poverty throughout the UK and Scotland. Of course, many of the instruments by which that can be delivered lie within the social security system, but others lie within the province of this Parliament. That is why I believe that the drive for early intervention in the education system is an effective and important measure. I also believe that this Administration's school meals policy, given what we know from the trial about the uptake figures and its success across Scotland, will be of substantial assistance in ensuring that every young child in Scotland has at least one decent square meal a day.

It is worrying that the First Minister does not know the true extent of the problem. I urge him to find out, and to do so quickly, because unless we know the extent of the problem, we will certainly not know how bad it is or how to deal with it.

Let me make one suggestion to the First Minister. In the meantime, we can start by having more health visitors, who are the key to preventing child malnutrition. I have discovered that a general practitioner practice in Springburn with 7,000 patients on its books has only one health visitor. Another GP practice in Possil has no health visitor at all. That is totally unacceptable. The scandal of child malnutrition and the scandal of there being too few health visitors go hand in hand. Will the First Minister demonstrate his resolve in tackling child malnutrition by backing Conservative policy for more health visitors for all our children throughout Scotland?

I will certainly examine any constructive suggestions. On the specific case that Annabel Goldie mentioned, I know that the Deputy First Minister has written to Jackson Carlaw—who I think raised the issue as the area MSP—to point out that the practice in question has a vacant position. I will certainly look at any constructive suggestions, whether from Annabel Goldie or from any other member, on tackling child malnutrition and poverty among children, which should concern the entire Parliament and go beyond party boundaries.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2020)

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

The First Minister will have seen in this morning's papers the list of quango executives in Scotland who are paid more than him. Some of them are paid even more than his MP, MSP and First Minister salaries put together. Does he think that there are too many people on too much money?

The previous Administration set the terms and conditions of the vast majority of agencies and quangos in Scotland. I am trying to remember; Tavish Scott was not Deputy First Minister in the previous Administration, but I think that he was a minister in it.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, has made clear, both to the Parliament's committees and more generally, the policy on unwarranted bonuses and rewards across the public sector in Scotland, which is that bonuses and rewards must relate strictly to performance. John Swinney has already acted to restrict the position. Is Tavish Scott suggesting that we should tear up contracts that were fixed by the previous Labour-Liberal Administration, or will he accept at some point that if he asks a question and gets an answer to it, he has a responsibility to explain how the situation came about in the first place?

I have said many times before that it is for members to ask questions during First Minister's question time.

That was a "No", then.

Does the First Minister know that such reports only scratch the surface? Through freedom of information requests, the Liberal Democrats have discovered that at least 3,400 people in the public sector in Scotland are paid more than Scottish Government ministers and that they receive a total of £401 million in pay every year. People at the bottom of the income scale are being threatened with losing their jobs and the number of young people who are unemployed has never been higher—[Interruption.]

Order.

In these tough times, does the First Minister think that the tiny proportion of people who get such a vast share of public money should shoulder a fairer share of the burden? As part of his budget, will he set a target to reduce that pay bill and to spend the money instead on creating skills and jobs for young people?

On leadership from the top, last year, Scottish ministers proposed and accepted—all of us—a pay freeze. I do not recall Tavish Scott or his MSPs reciprocating that to any extent. Indeed, Mike Rumbles thought that the suggestion was ridiculous. That was done and it set an example. John Swinney has already dealt with quango bonuses.

I have two things to say to Tavish Scott.

Answer the question.

I am answering it. I remind Tavish Scott that bonuses were set and settlements were made by a Labour-Liberal Administration in Scotland. I do not accept the Liberal Democrat party's proposition that the solution to this country's economic problems is to freeze the wages of people across the public sector. Every nurse and every policeman in Scotland would be a casualty of that Liberal Democrat policy.

Bill Butler has a brief supplementary question.

The First Minister will be aware that a ministerial statement on sectarianism was made yesterday. That statement is welcome as a first step, but it fell short of the coherent strategy that is required. The lack of a specific commitment to halt the decline in the number of school twinning projects is of particular concern. Given that education must be at the heart of any successful developed strategy, will the First Minister commit his Government to working with local authorities to reverse the alarming decline in the number of twinning projects?

In his statement, Fergus Ewing set out the range of activities that are taking place and the range of organisations that campaign and work daily against sectarianism in Scotland. All members should embrace that cause. I deprecate any attempt to take the battle against sectarianism into the party-political arena in Scotland. Therefore, we will discuss with our partners in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities how valuable school projects can be sustained and maintained.

Of course, tackling sectarianism is an enormous priority for the Government. However, Labour members will have to accept at some point that among the implications of the deep public expenditure cuts that are being directed from Westminster are pressure on local authorities, vital projects and the Scottish Government, and pressure across the public services and right across the country. I know that Bill Butler accepts that there will be consequences in Scotland if expenditure is cut back by Westminster. I hope that the Labour Party can explain that to the people when it is called to account next year.

---

Commonwealth Games 2014 (Support)

To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government is providing to the 2014 Commonwealth Games. (S3F-2032)

Earlier this week, the Glasgow 2014 organising committee announced an increase in the overall budget for the games. The additional budget was required mainly in response to an increase in broadcasting costs and the need to set aside a greater contingency fund. The new games budget is still only one 20th of the public funding that is being provided for the 2012 Olympics. The Scottish Government's contribution has risen by £59 million to £297 million at 2007 prices. That necessary increase is challenging for the public purse, but the funding boost will help us to stage an event that will have lasting benefits for generations to come. The games are good news for Glasgow and Scotland, which is why we have also recently launched a £23.5 million legacy plan for Scotland to capitalise on the opportunities of 2014.

I want to ensure that, in terms of its budget, Glasgow's Commonwealth games is treated equally with the London Olympics by the United Kingdom Government. Will the First Minister back my call for Glasgow City Council to join me and the Scottish Government in insisting that the £300 million that is owed to Scotland through London Olympics regeneration funding is paid to Scotland? Will he also ensure that a significant share of those funds—if they are recovered—will be used for regeneration projects in Glasgow to build a lasting legacy of the 2014 games? I fear that, if that does not happen, the UK Government will not only rip off Glasgow, but will let down Scotland.

Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government are co-operating fully on delivering the Commonwealth games for Scotland, as we demonstrated at a press conference in Glasgow on Monday. Nonetheless, I thank Bob Doris for his question and the points to which he has drawn attention.

I find it disappointing that Jim Murphy and Gerry Sutcliffe cancelled the meeting with the Minister for Public Health and Sport on 10 November to discuss the return of £150 million of lottery money to Scotland. Scotland is losing out not just on the lottery money, but on another £165 million because of the UK Government's decision not to subject regeneration expenditure on the Olympics to the Barnett formula in the normal way. There should be support across the chamber, not just from Glasgow City Council, for Scotland to get its fair share. It is about time the United Kingdom Government stepped up to the plate on the issue and stopped ripping off Scotland.

Several members want to ask supplementary questions on this important matter, and I am keen to allow as many as possible. Questions should therefore be short and sharp, as should the answers.

Although we all want to see Glasgow hosting the best ever Commonwealth games in 2014, what specific guarantee can the First Minister give to council tax payers in Glasgow and all other taxpayers throughout Scotland that the increase of £81 million will be the final such increase?

What was announced on Monday was the result of many months of careful work. I have every confidence—as has Glasgow City Council—in the audit that has been done of the expenditure that needs to be devoted to the games.

Some people have argued that the broadcasting costs should have been better anticipated—I saw that argument deployed in one of our newspapers. The Government inherited the estimate that broadcasting rights would offset broadcasting costs on the home broadcaster, and I have no complaint whatever with the estimate that was formulated in 2007, which was based on the experiences of Manchester in 2002 and of Melbourne in 2006. It was an entirely reasonable estimate to make at the time—indeed, I still hope that the BBC can be prevailed upon to give Scotland the same treatment for 2014 as Manchester received for 2002.

The Government reports of the overspend stated that £20 million of the £81 million that was needed to fill the gap would come from a reserve fund. Should further contingencies arise, how much will be left in the reserve fund?

There are two aspects: there is a contingency fund of £80 million, which has received a £48 million increase as a result of the announcements on Monday, and there is a reserve fund of £20 million beyond that. The reserve fund is the only part of the funding that does not ascribe to the formula of 80 per cent coming from the Scottish Government and 20 per cent coming from Glasgow City Council. The reserve fund is funded entirely by the Scottish Government and the Scottish public purse. I think that that is right and proper, because although the benefit of the games will be felt predominantly in the city of Glasgow, their underlying benefits will stretch across the country.

At a time of severe pressure on the public purse, meeting the obligations will undoubtedly be a huge strain. Nonetheless, we should keep our eyes on the prize—the prize for Scotland is enormous. This major international event is going to have enormous beneficial effects not only on infrastructure and immediate building but for future generations of young Scots.

Does the First Minister appreciate the deep frustration that is felt by those of us in Glasgow who have worked so hard to bring the Commonwealth games to the city at his attempts always to pass the buck and blame other people whenever we raise an issue about them? Whether he likes it or not—

Question, please.

How does the First Minister square in his own mind this great commitment that he parades so publicly with the cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link project which, as he knows, was a vital part of the bid document? Will he attempt to reinstate his credibility by reinstating the GARL project?

Margaret Curran's view is not shared by the Commonwealth Games Federation, which pointed out that the project was not an integral part of either the games bid or their successful delivery. Now that the smoke of by-election has cleared, I hope that even the constituency member will somehow concede that the billions of pounds of infrastructure investment that is now being made in and around Glasgow is ample demonstration of this Government's commitment to that great city. Prime among these projects is, of course, the M74 motorway, which has been awaiting completion for the best part of 40 years and which will, under a Scottish National Party Government, finally be finished.

---

Custodial Sentences

To ask the First Minister, in the light of the Justice Committee's rejection of the Scottish Government's plans to create a statutory presumption against custodial sentences of less than six months, whether the Scottish Government will now abandon these plans. (S3F-2036)

Custodial sentences of six months or less are simply not working and do little to stop offending behaviour. Indeed, the Justice Committee itself acknowledges that short sentences

"have limited effect as a deterrent".

The figures show that three quarters of those who are released from short sentences go on to reoffend within two years of getting out. In contrast, three out of five people who are sentenced to community punishment do not go on to reoffend over the same period. It is clear from the vast array of comments on the matter that more and more people agree with the Scottish Government's position, so we will continue to build on that growing consensus outside the Parliament, which I believe will be reflected in a majority in the Parliament.

Does the First Minister not realise that communities throughout Scotland are looking for tough action on crime? Does he not accept that the scrapping of six-month sentences, which will free 40 per cent of those who have been convicted of indecent assault, 71 per cent of those who have been convicted of housebreaking and 75 per cent of those who have been convicted of all crimes and offences, is the wrong policy and that it is time to follow the Justice Committee's sound advice?

I will tell James Kelly what tough action on crime is: it is having in Scotland a record number of police on the streets and the record low in criminal behaviour for a generation.

What James Kelly is proposing is a cycle and policy of despair. It is exactly the policy that the Labour Party tried when it was in office and exactly the policy that failed. I know that the member is a keen advocate of his party's policy, but I also know that other members on the Labour benches do not share his opinion. For example, one Labour MSP confided to the Edinburgh Evening News that he found his party's approach "depressing" and said:

"Anyone who knows anything about it feels uncomfortable with what we're saying."

No wonder, because Labour does not have a single answer for improving Scotland's justice system and no policy except the counsel of despair, which has been tried—and has failed—for so long.

Is the First Minister aware that former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith recently called for the scrapping of sentences of two months or less in England? Does he welcome this admission from the Conservative Party that short sentences are, to quote IDS, "farcical"? Does he agree—

Hurry up, please.

Does the First Minister agree that Conservatives and Labour members in Scotland should start to base their prison policy on evidence rather than perceived populism?

As briefly as possible, please, First Minister.

If I remember correctly, Iain Duncan Smith has no reputation for being soft on crime or anything else, and I know that his remarks will weigh heavily with members in this chamber, as will the words of Cherie Blair, who is another advocate of the Scottish Government's approach to criminal justice.

---

Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will announce the minimum price per unit of alcohol that it plans to introduce. (S3F-2021)

Expert advice from the World Health Organization and many others tells us that minimum pricing will be a targeted and effective intervention that will save lives. If the bill is successful, it will be for ministers to propose to Parliament an effective minimum price, but we encourage debate on the illustrative example of 40 pence per alcoholic unit.

No single action will bring about the change that is required to rebalance Scotland's relationship with alcohol. That is why we have outlined a comprehensive range of measures in our alcohol framework, and why we want full and effective enforcement of existing laws.

I am sure that the First Minister will agree that we need, before we can discuss the minimum price, to know whether such a policy would be legal. Three weeks ago in the chamber, the First Minister said about the legal advice that the Government had taken on minimum pricing:

"I hope and believe that such information can be made available to members to enable us to discuss and address the issue in a serious way."—[Official Report, 29 October 2009; c 20682.]

The following week in the chamber, his deputy said:

"I want to work with other parties … but we are working within the same constraints as the previous Administration. I have acres of quotations from previous ministers … on why legal advice cannot be shared."—[Official Report, 5 November 2009; c 20913.]

What is the Scottish Government's position? Is it that of the First Minister, who wants to share the legal advice, or that of his deputy, who does not?

If the member examines his quotations further, he will see that I said that we are keen to share as much information as we possibly can.

The restrictions on sharing legal advice are well known. Murdo Fraser will also be aware of certain precedents that allowed information to be provided to members to help them to make the decisions.

I know that Murdo Fraser will take what I am going to say in the way in which it is meant. In addition to giving indications of support for the Scottish Government's criminal justice policy on short sentences, I notice that Iain Duncan Smith has come out firmly on the side of minimum pricing on alcohol, and has said that it is the key way to tackling the problem among young people. Given that Murdo Fraser once slavishly followed Iain Duncan Smith when he was Tory leader, will he now give some regard to those wise words from his former chief?

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—