First Minister's Question Time
Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2147)
Later today, I will take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.
The Home Office and the police told Roseanna Cunningham not to include two footpaths near the Balmoral estate in a core path network because it would increase the security risk to the Queen. Roseanna Cunningham's astonishing reply was:
"I am not persuaded that this amounts to sufficient reason for excluding these two paths from the core paths plan."
Does the First Minister agree that the safety of the Queen and her family is a sufficient reason to keep two paths off a map?
Even by Iain Gray's standards, that was an absurd way to introduce the subject—it was almost as embarrassing as his interview on Radio Scotland this morning, which I had the misfortune to hear and which we will no doubt come to later, because I want the whole chamber to appreciate the full bouquet of his patent absurdity on the issue.
I have examined the issue because of its seriousness. Every correct procedure was followed throughout. The Cairngorms National Park Authority wanted to have the paths designated, an objection was lodged by the factor of the Balmoral estate, and the matter went to the official reporter, following due process. The official reporter said that the paths should be designated, subject to security concerns. Roseanna Cunningham wrote to the minister in the Home Office on 10 December to ask for the security information, which she said she should have before she reached a decision. She got it last week, on Thursday 14 January. The same day, she instructed her officials to say to the Cairngorms national park that, under the circumstances, the paths could not be designated. The park authority was informed of that last Monday. Everything that this Government has done on the issue has been carried out in accordance with due process.
Now that Iain Gray at last has the facts, would he like to retreat from the totally ridiculous absurdity of his position?
The true facts are—[Interruption.]
Order.
—that the advice was known in 2007, in 2008 and in 2009, and that it was reiterated in the letter that finally resulted in the right thing being done, as the letter makes clear. The truth is that Roseanna Cunningham rejected the advice of the police and the Home Office. She had to be forced to do the right thing by a Home Office threat—[Interruption.]
Order.
—to overrule her, because what she proposed to do was such
"a security risk to the Queen and her immediate family."
In these days, when everyone knows that terrorism is a real threat, will the First Minister admit that Roseanna Cunningham was wrong to try to ignore security advice?
When Iain Gray is in a giant hole, he should stop digging; instead, he is digging himself in even further. I will quote what Roseanna Cunningham said in her letter to the Home Office so that the whole chamber can appreciate it. She wrote:
"Before reaching a decision on the Cairngorm National Park (CNPA) Core Paths Plan following a public local inquiry I am writing to establish whether there is any additional information about security considerations affecting the Balmoral Estate which you would wish me to take into account."
Before reaching a decision, she asked for the security information. She got the security information and she made a decision that was communicated to the Cairngorms national park.
There is one aspect of Iain Gray's question that I hope everyone agrees with, which is that security issues concerning the royal family are serious. I hope that he agrees that it would be a serious matter if it were to be found that someone had maliciously leaked the information that we are discussing to certain newspapers. We have therefore asked the Home Office today to institute a leak inquiry to see whether we can establish where the information came from. Given the seriousness with which Iain Gray takes the issue, I know that he will join me in welcoming that step taken by the Scottish Government.
There was a request from Roseanna Cunningham for additional information in order to change her mind. The only additional information that was provided was that, if she proceeded in the way that she proposed to do, she would have to be overruled by the Home Office for security considerations. It is good that the right decision has finally been reached, but will the First Minister simply admit that that threat should not have been required in order to reach that correct decision?
I have already read verbatim from Roseanna Cunningham's letter, and I think that members and the record will validate that position.
I promised members that they would be able to appreciate the full bouquet of the absurdity of Iain Gray's position. I have a transcript of what was said on Radio Scotland this morning. Iain Gray said:
"I think the truth is she decided these two paths should not be included when the Scottish Government realised that a story was going to run in a newspaper today. That's not the proper reason for taking what is, in the end, the proper decision."
Even Aileen Clarke of the BBC was moved to say:
"Well, apparently, the parks authority was advised of this at the beginning of the week, not just this morning or late last night".
Roseanna Cunningham took the decision on the day that she received the letter on security information from the Home Office. Now that Iain Gray realises that and does not contest it, will he revise the position that he took this morning?
My position is straightforward. [Interruption.]
Order.
The security advice—
Bring back Jack!
Order.
I advise the First Minister to take security issues seriously. The security advice was known in 2007, 2008 and 2009 and was resisted until the threat was made that Roseanna Cunningham's decision would be overruled. The First Minister should be big enough to admit that an error of judgment was made and that the threat should never have been required.
I agree with Iain Gray on one matter, which was included in the letter from the Home Office minister, David Hanson. He said:
"The police would prefer to attract as little attention as possible to this path, given its location."
I am not sure that Iain Gray has followed that advice over the past 24 hours, but I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the leak inquiry so that we can pinpoint which forces in society wanted to make a political issue of royal security.
As Iain Gray was stumbling through his final question, I heard the cry, "Bring back Jack!" The trouble for Iain Gray is that, when I looked round, Jack was nodding.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2148)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
Does the First Minister accept that the Scottish National Party Government has got its priorities on health all wrong? It puts political ideology before patient care and is more interested in populist policies, such as free prescriptions for people such as Alex Salmond who are on £160,000 a year, rather than in providing value for money. What we really need is less waste, more choice and more innovation.
In England, there are general practitioner walk-in treatment centres open during patient-friendly hours and at patient-friendly locations. Will the First Minister pilot such a facility in Scotland or will he deny patients in Scotland the benefits that patients in England enjoy?
I am glad that Annabel Goldie has asked that question, as it gives me the opportunity to deal with a serious matter.
One of the important statistics to come out this week was published in the Commonwealth Institute's review of public satisfaction with the health service. Annabel Goldie will have seen that the level of satisfaction with our health service in Scotland is the highest throughout these islands. I am sure that every member will welcome the confidence that the general public of Scotland have in our health service.
I take the opportunity to point out something that has not been widely reported yet. The Nuffield Foundation now admits that it made an error of overestimation of 27 per cent in the number of doctors that there were in Scotland. That affects a number of the criteria that it was judging. If a foundation has to publish information that is three years out of date when it is carefully making a study, it should not arithmetically miscount the number of doctors that there are in Scotland.
Given the level of public confidence that exists in the national health service, I appeal to the chamber to unite in thanking the doctors, the nurses, the ancillary staff and all those who work in our national health service, who do such a great job for the Scottish people.
I am sure that some of that information is interesting to the chamber, but not one bit of it answered my question.
We all aspire to make public services better, and I defend our NHS. Our clinicians, our nurses and all the others who work within it do a tremendous job. Nonetheless, I ask Mr Salmond whether it would not be wonderful if, here in Scotland, someone could see their GP within a quarter of an hour, without any appointment, on their way to work, and still be at their desk by 8 o'clock. People can do that in London, in Bristol and in Manchester, where it is a case of, "The patient will see you now, doctor."
Yet again, the First Minister has his head in the sand—blind to what the public need and want, and obsessed with his own top-down, Alex-Salmond-knows-best approach. Patients in Scotland deserve better, so I ask the question again. Why is the First Minister denying patients in Scotland the benefits of GP walk-in treatment centres that are enjoyed by patients in England? Why is he not standing up for patients in Scotland?
As Annabel Goldie knows, Nicola Sturgeon has extended the opening hours of GP surgeries in Scotland. That measure was taken because we are concerned about patients and consumers of the health service, who are our citizens and our voters. We are also proud of the improvements that have been made in the health service in recent years. Out-patient waiting times in Scotland are now the same as those south of the border, and fewer in-patients are waiting more than 12 weeks—only 190. In my opinion, that is still 190 too many, but it is 190 in Scotland compared with 50,000 in-patients waiting for more than 12 weeks south of the border.
I am delighted that Annabel Goldie has confidence in our health service and welcomes the performance of all those who work within it. In terms of the political debate, it is helpful to examine how further improvements can be made. Nevertheless, we should, above all, recognise the achievements of our national health service, which have been considerable over the years. We must not allow the debate to be dictated by information that has been proven to be deeply flawed in a significant area of investigation. I welcome the political consensus on the need to defend our health service and the congratulations to those who work within it.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2149)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Under the United Kingdom Labour Government and the Scottish National Party Government, the number of people who are out of work in Scotland rose by 61,000 over the past year to 202,000. Quango bosses, who we found out this morning have ignored the Government and have refused to give up hundreds of thousands of pounds of bonuses, are utterly wrong. People who are looking for work in Scotland would support our Parliament and the Government if money from highly paid quango bosses could be used to support new opportunities for young people without jobs and businesses that are struggling to get through the recession. What steps will the First Minister take to make that happen?
I share Tavish Scott's concern about the unemployment figures in Scotland, which are far too high. However, I know that he will agree that it is a matter of at least some satisfaction in these difficult conditions that, for 31 successive months, the level of unemployment has been lower, employment has been higher and worker participation in the labour force has been higher in Scotland than elsewhere in these islands.
On quango bosses, Mr Scott knows that John Swinney has asked people to observe the pay freeze that has been introduced in the higher ranks of the civil service. I know that Mr Scott understands that it is difficult to cut across contracts that have been signed. Given that many of those contracts were signed when he was a Government minister, I think that he will appreciate fully the difficulty of trying to unsign contracts that he seemed to agree with at the time.
We certainly hope that the Liberal Democrats' budget proposals for pay cuts for top public service people will be accepted by the Government. Does the First Minister agree that what we have heard from the Conservatives represents the wrong approach on pay? Their proposed freeze on any salary of £18,000—below average earnings—tells us all that we need to know about the Tories. It would be a pay freeze for newly qualified Scottish teachers and nurses to pay for tax breaks for millionaires.
Did the First Minister also hear the Conservatives say yesterday in this chamber that their pay policy will apply to the armed forces? That means that a lance corporal coming home from Afghanistan would find that the Tories had cut his pay in real terms while he had been away.
When the First Minister decides his public pay policy, will he ensure that he has nothing to do with those unfair Tory proposals?
I feel an election of some kind coming on.
As Tavish Scott knows, I believe that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden—hence the initiatives that John Swinney has already taken on senior civil service pay.
The only cautionary note that I would add to Tavish Scott's proclamation, which I agree with, is that I am not certain how it is compatible with what Vince Cable has been saying at a UK level, which is where, unfortunately, so much of pay in the public sector is still set. As I understand his position, Vince Cable has suggested that there should be a five-year freeze in public sector pay across the country. That position might have been amended—and let us hope that it has been—but would it not involve punishing low-paid workers, which I deprecate, as well as asking for sacrifice from high-paid workers, which I support?
We will take a supplementary question from Jackie Baillie.
The First Minister will be aware of the new £20 million package that has been announced by the UK Government to assist thalidomide survivors in England, which was followed swiftly by an announcement that the Northern Ireland Assembly would make a contribution. However, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has yet to respond.
I know from a constituent the physical hardship and severe challenges that thalidomide survivors face on a daily basis and the need for housing adaptations, wheelchairs and other services—needs that are currently not being met. Given that the First Minister signed an early-day motion in Westminster in November to support financial assistance for thalidomide survivors, will he today commit his Government in Scotland to doing just that?
Although, as we are all aware, this tragic episode occurred well before the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, we all wish to express our sympathy for the suffering that has been experienced by the affected children and their families and friends. I am delighted that the UK Government has agreed to provide funding of £20 million to the Thalidomide Trust for investment, adaptations and other interventions. I am happy to announce that the Scottish Government has agreed to make proportionate funding available to contribute to that package of assistance. We will take forward discussions with the Thalidomide Trust to discuss the best way in which to allocate those additional funds. I hope that that is welcomed by the entire chamber.
The First Minister will be aware of the landslip at Bervie braes at the weekend, which caused considerable damage to the home of my constituent Richard Barnes, and that more rain is forecast for the north-east in the coming days.
I first raised this issue with the First Minister in August 2007, and Aberdeenshire Council has subsequently made a formal request for funding to stabilise the braes. Will the First Minister provide that funding, as he did for Pennan in his constituency?
On the substantive question, I know that the request is being considered by John Swinney, who is well aware of the seriousness of the situation.
Climate change has implications in a range of areas. Flooding and landslips will cause enormous issues for local government and national Government, as well as for individuals and householders. That matter has to be responded to. I know that John Swinney is considering the request and will inform the constituency MSP, the householders and Aberdeenshire Council as soon as he is able to make a decision.
Alcohol Abuse
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of alcohol abuse, estimated at £3.56 billion a year. (S3F-2157)
Academics at the University of York have provided the fullest estimate yet of the costs of alcohol misuse to Scotland. They are estimated at between £2.48 billion and £4.64 billion, which gives a midpoint estimate of £3.56 billion. That burden falls across our society, our economy, our health and police services, and our families and communities. The financial cost has been calculated, but the social, family and human cost of alcohol misuse in Scotland has extraordinary consequences and runs throughout society.
That is why the Scottish Government believes that, in the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill that we are taking forward, every possible measure should be taken to rebalance Scotland's relationship with alcohol. I hope that after due consideration, and given the way that the debate is moving north and south of the border, members in the chamber will feel able to give the bill their fullest support.
Andrew Burnham, Labour Secretary of State for Health, recently said:
"There is no shortage of research that shows the link with price and people drinking harmful levels of alcohol—there is no debate about that."
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Chris Huhne, has stated that he supports expert advice that the best way to reduce alcohol abuse is to introduce minimum unit pricing.
Will the First Minister join me in calling on our Liberal and Labour colleagues in this chamber to follow the lead of their Westminster counterparts and put the welfare of the people of Scotland ahead of party politics by supporting the introduction of minimum pricing?
While Joe FitzPatrick was asking his question, I heard some members on the Labour benches saying, "What have these comments from south of the border got to do with us?" What they have to do with us is as follows.
England has a huge and serious problem with alcohol misuse, and Scotland has an even bigger problem. If action has been advocated by responsible politicians south of the border, responsible politicians north of the border should, if anything, seek further action in addition to what is being proposed south of the border.
We can argue the politics of that, but I prefer to consider the Health Select Committee conclusions. As members will know, House of Commons select committees operate, like committees of this Parliament, on an all-party basis and by consensus agreement.
Kevin Barron MP, the chairman of that committee, said:
"I agree with the chief medical officer that introducing unit pricing will reduce binge drinking. As the report points out, it will also help traditional pubs in their battle against cut price supermarket offers.
The facts about alcohol misuse are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government."
Yes, it is time for bold government—and it is also time for responsible opposition.
First, I welcome the First Minister's cautious comments about the York study. The human cost was originally included in his Government's press release as a taxpayer cost, but he has now rolled that back.
Secondly, no one disputes the fact that price and availability are major drivers of alcohol consumption. The dispute is purely over the evidence on minimum pricing—a policy that will result in at least £86.7 million being handed to retailers of alcohol.
A question, please, Dr Simpson.
The question is this: will the First Minister, in the meantime, take two steps that he can take? First, he can roll back the abolition of the national licensing forum, which was supporting the new policies. Secondly, he can prevent the closure of Beechwood home in Inverness, which deals with drunk and incapable people. He can take those measures now without waiting for further debate.
As anybody will accept, we have significantly improved prevention and treatment services, and that is backed up by the record investment of £120 million from 2008 to 2011 in tackling alcohol misuse.
I ask Richard Simpson, in all sense of responsibility, to believe, given the economic, financial and human cost of alcohol misuse, that this Government's investment of even substantially expanded sums in tackling alcohol misuse is dwarfed by the sums that alcohol costs our society.
It seemed to me that, after an agonised internal debate, it was for political reasons that the Labour Party decided to set its face against minimum pricing north of the border. Even at this stage, will Richard Simpson—given the overwhelming evidence and movement of opinion, coming from south of the border, and given his personal background—try to revise his position? When Labour does revise its position, it will find that this Government is prepared to move forward on the issue in a consensual fashion.
In order to reduce the long-term cost to the taxpayer of alcohol abuse, will the First Minister ensure that those who seek help to address their alcohol consumption get that help when they need it, rather than being placed on a waiting list? Will he ensure that more priority is given to underlying mental health conditions, given that some people resort to alcohol as a form of self-medication?
Yes. No one in the chamber could disagree with the onus of Mary Scanlon's question. I point to the Government's increased investment for tackling alcohol misuse and to the obvious fact that £120 million over those years is a substantially increased and well-justified investment. However, no amount of public investment will enable us to tackle an issue of the scale of alcohol misuse in Scotland unless we tackle it at source by reducing Scotland's overconsumption of alcohol.
I ask the First Minister to have regard to the Health and Sport Committee's report, to be published in the coming weeks, following a cross-party fact-finding visit to Finland and France on minimum pricing and other measures to combat those countries' increasing concerns about alcohol consumption and the impact on the health and wellbeing of their nations.
The international comparisons are important for informing the debate in Scotland, not just because of the variety of measures that other countries are taking to address the problem but in order to help us to understand how the scale of Scotland's problem has increased over the past two generations in comparison not only with south of the border but with just about every other country in the European continent.
Some people believe that Scotland has always had a problem—that alcohol has always been part of the Scottish psyche and reputation. The statistics do not bear that out. In the past two generations, there has been a huge divergence between the experience of Scotland and that of most other countries. Therefore, I agree with the member that the international evidence in the committee's report should inform our debate and ever more alert the necessity for action.
Does the First Minister accept the view that the strategy and the number 1 target must be to change the culture of toleration of drunkenness and alcohol abuse and, especially, to get rid of the insidious use by supermarkets of volume discounts and below-cost offers in the off-trade, building on the underreported success of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 in banning happy hours and special offers in pubs and clubs? Is he satisfied that the Government's proposals on irresponsible promotions, with the exemptions suggested, are as watertight as they can possibly be?
Parliament will debate those proposals but, as the member knows, as part of them there is the move against deep discounting in supermarkets. That is part of the panoply of measures that we propose. However, I support the views of Don Foster, the Liberal Democrats' shadow culture spokesperson, when he said on 12 November:
"I truly believe the time has now come to be looking at a scheme for minimum pricing."
If, as I said a few seconds ago, politicians in England are starting to address the issue, surely we, with a greater problem even than the huge problem south of the border, should be equally capable of moving down what is, I accept, the courageous road that will be necessary if we are to provide the public and political lead to deploy every possible weapon in Scotland's battle to redress our relationship with alcohol.
Open Prisons (Transfer of Prisoners)
To ask the First Minister what progress has been made on implementing the recommendations in Professor Alec Spencer's report regarding the transfer of prisoners to the open prison estate, "Balancing Risk and Need". (S3F-2163)
The Scottish Government published the response to Professor Spencer's report into the open estate on 8 January. Six of the report's recommendations have already been implemented, and delivery of another is being taken forward in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
As the member will know, Tayside Police released a statement this morning saying that Mr Duff had been apprehended. I understand that he will appear at Perth sheriff court today.
Does the First Minister agree that, although police efforts in capturing Peter Duff are to be applauded, given the serious concerns about security in the open prison estate raised previously it is unacceptable that he was in Castle Huntly in the first place, as a violent offender only two years into a nine-year jail term with a record of absconding? Will the First Minister now do what his cabinet secretary has failed to do and agree that the Spencer report recommendations should now be implemented in full for the sake of community safety?
I regret the way in which Richard Baker addresses the issue, and I am sure that he is about to regret it too because I have been doing a survey of the record of abscondees from the open estate in Scotland. It is important to consider such matters when looking at recommendations. We are now in a position where the total number of abscondees this year is, at nine, one fifth of the level that the current Cabinet Secretary for Justice inherited in 2006-07 and one sixth of the level under the Tories.
Mr Baker asks why we are reviewing the Spencer recommendation on changing the two-year rule to a one-year rule. We are reviewing it because that two-year rule was introduced by a Labour Administration in 2004 when it moved from a one-year rule, which in many respects had been in operation before then.
I have been looking closely at the statistics. Not only is it true that the number of abscondees in Scotland has declined dramatically under the current justice secretary and Government, there have been fewer abscondees from the open estate in Scotland this year than there were in some years from the closed estate under the Labour Party.
As for Richard Baker's bona fides on the matter, when a flood of abscondees was emerging from the open estate under the Labour-Liberal Administration, there was not one question or speech from Richard Baker in that entire time of office. Why has his interest in the issue suddenly been exercised just at the time when we have a record low in the number of abscondees in the history of the Scottish open estate?
I hope that members will forgive me if we indulge in a little overtime. I felt that it was important that all sides of the debate should be heard on question 4. Question 6 is from Elizabeth Smith.
Class Size Reductions
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the reduction of class sizes for primary 1 to primary 3. (S3F-2150)
We are in favour of it.
Last week, directors of education said that the Scottish Government was wrong to set a specific target of 18 or fewer pupils in all primary 1 to 3 classes since that artificial numerical target does not reflect the quality of teaching or the different needs of individual schools.
Does the First Minister accept that the quality of teaching and the different needs of individual schools are paramount and that it should be entirely a matter for a headteacher to determine the class sizes that will best deliver good education in his or her school?
There is substantial international evidence that lower class sizes in primary 1 to 3 and early years are of tremendous assistance in educational achievement. I am sure that most people in Scotland will welcome the record low average primary class size of 23.1, which has been achieved under this Administration.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and I have no difficulty in addressing with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities how we can expand the number of children in classes of 18 or fewer in primary 1 to 3 by 11,000 over the course of the current parliamentary session and reach a total of 20 per cent. That will be a dramatic year-by-year improvement on anything that has gone before.
I have considerably more difficulty with those who argue that the objective of reducing class size has no validity in educational terms, an argument that is not restricted to the Conservative party. Elizabeth Smith is wrong to argue that, and this Government will continue to pursue to the fullest possible extent the reduction of class sizes in primary 1 to 3.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—