First Minister's Question Time
I am delighted to inform the chamber that His Excellency Iztok Mirošic, the Slovenian ambassador to the United Kingdom, has joined us in the Presiding Officer's gallery for First Minister's question time. Ambassador, I welcome you warmly. [Applause.]
Engagements
Presiding Officer, I associate myself with the welcome that you have offered to our guest today.
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-00516)
Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. In joining in the welcome for the Slovenian ambassador, I point out that Slovenia is a small, independent country that is leading Europe as the current President of the Council of Ministers.
What advice would the First Minister give to Aberdeen's Richmond Fellowship, which cares for those with mental illness and is being robbed of £360,000 due to cuts by the SNP-led Aberdeen City Council?
Nicol Stephen is pointing out that Aberdeen City Council is Liberal led, although the SNP is part of the governing coalition. The council has been through a number of permutations in recent years, but everyone agrees that it is now much better than it was when it was Labour led, in the dim and distant past.
Aberdeen City Council faces a number of funding challenges, as do other councils across Scotland. Like every other council in Scotland, over the next three years it will receive increases well above the inflation rate and well above the rate of increases to the Scottish budget. For the first time in a generation, the share of local government expenditure is rising as a share of Scottish expenditure.
I am not sure whether bickering over whose fault it is is the most useful advice to offer to the Richmond Fellowship. Under no Labour administration did local newspapers say, "Would the last person out of Aberdeen please put the lights off?"
We will come to the concordat in a minute, but right now we are talking about some of Scotland's most vulnerable people, who are turning out not to be the First Minister's strong suit. Across Aberdeen, there have been £27 million-worth of cuts—a move that The Press and Journal reported as the "St Valentine's Day massacre". Home care packages for disabled children have been cut, schools are to be closed, a swimming pool has gone and leisure facilities have been axed. That story is mirrored right across the country. Are the cuts not a result of the fact that local government's share of the total Scottish budget will be smaller under the SNP than it was under the Labour-Liberal Administration?
I do not know how far Wendy Alexander's knowledge of the history of the politics of the north-east of Scotland goes, but the previous Labour administration in Aberdeen was drummed out of office by the local newspaper to which she referred.
Wendy Alexander asked about local government's share of the Scottish budget. I know that she is not always in command of figures, so I will point out the reality. I remind her that, over the next three years, the Scottish budget will increase by 0.5 per cent, 1.6 per cent and 2.3 per cent. She thought that those increases were generous. Over the next three years, local government in Scotland will receive annual increases of 5 per cent, 4.1 per cent and 3.4 per cent.
It is little wonder that Pat Watters, the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, said of the settlement and of the Labour Party's sham opposition to it:
"I think the opposition in parliament has a job to do, and that's to oppose government as they see fit. My job in local government is a bit different, it's to get the best deal possible for our local communities, and I believe that's what we have done."
The First Minister knows that he has the highest ever budget at his disposal and that local government's share of the total Scottish budget will be smaller under the SNP than it was under the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration.
It is time for the First Minister to get out of his limo and see what is happening in Scotland under the SNP. In Fife, pensioners can no longer afford a home help. In Highland, the axe has fallen on school cleaners, pre-school provision and support for the voluntary sector. Even the cost of a burial is going up. This is the con of the concordat. The reality is cuts, cuts, cuts. First we had a Tory budget, now we have Tory-style cuts. Is our First Minister big enough to accept responsibility for the real cuts that are now being made across the country?
The settlement is 5 per cent in this coming year, over 4 per cent in the year after, and 3.4 per cent in the year after that. That is a substantial increase in local government funding in the face of the tightest settlement from Westminster over the course of devolution.
There is one thing about Wendy Alexander's logic that I do not understand. If she says that the small increases that were awarded to the Scottish budget over the next three years are adequate because we are getting the largest budget ever, why does she not also think that the much larger percentage increases that we have awarded to local government over the next three years are more than adequate? Many figures in local government believe that. They think that they have got the best deal for a generation. They think that Labour's opposition is a sham exercise. They are getting on with the job of delivering services for the Scottish people.
If the First Minister thinks that the settlement is more than adequate, let us consider the City of Edinburgh Council, where SNP councillors have already forced through a £1 million cut from sure start and cuts to schools budgets of £870,000. They have also axed 320 full-time nursery places. Today, the people of Edinburgh are waiting to hear where the budget axe will fall next.
Trams.
Order.
We learned this week of the First Minister's fondness of using his ministerial car to pick up his curry. Is the First Minister becoming Mr Takeaway? He is taking away from the disabled, the homeless, the infirm, the youngest—and the oldest—and the poorest. Is not his Government a takeaway Government—all takeaway, but no delivery?
The deputy leader of City of Edinburgh Council said of Wendy Alexander:
"For her to cause fear and unrest among staff and the local community is calculated and irresponsible".
Under the tough settlement that Westminster imposed on this Government, we have increased the percentage to local government and signed an historic concordat with local authorities—
That is totally wrong. What about their share of the budget?
Order.
Labour councillors the length and breadth are thanking God for the SNP, as Glasgow City Council said.
In all the settlements across Scotland, local authorities have managed to replicate the Scottish Government's approach to no compulsory redundancies. Contrast that with Wendy Alexander's hungry caterpillar speech, in which she seemed to say that she thought that efficiency savings were not enough. Indeed, the only people who face job insecurity in Scotland seem to be Wendy Alexander's spin doctors.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I am delighted to hear Wendy Alexander acknowledge that the only Opposition party in the Parliament to use the budget to deliver for the people of Scotland was the Scottish Conservatives. [Interruption.]
Order.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-00517)
I met the Secretary of State for Scotland recently to talk about the Gould report. I have no immediate plans to meet him again, but meetings will no doubt be arranged.
Headlines this morning proclaimed that ministers are set for a U-turn on mutual status for Scottish Water. It is clear to me having listened to speeches this morning that, far from ministers being set for a U-turn, they are stuck in a U-bend—in Labour's case, a Unison bend. The truth is that neither party in that left-wing alliance is offering a review—[Interruption.]
Order.
Neither party wants a review. Both back nationalisation and reject mutualisation. There is a choice: between a perpetual burden of subsidy on the taxpayer and a progressive utility fit for purpose for this century returning money to its customers.
Let us cut through the meaningless candy floss of the Labour amendment in this morning's debate and ask the First Minister a simple question: does he support for Scottish Water the nationalisation model of the previous century or a new, progressive, mutual model fit for the 21st century? He cannot have both.
I am interested in the new alliance that I am forging with Wendy Alexander and the Labour Party. The abstention on the budget was the first step towards that, and I am delighted that we seem to be finding common ground on the argument on Scottish Water.
There are two things to say about Scottish Water. First, we should acknowledge the substantial improvement in Scottish Water's performance in general in recent times and last year in particular. The whole chamber should acknowledge that.
Secondly, we have two difficulties and doubts about mutualisation. First, even if we took action tomorrow, the savings that the Conservative party and the Liberal party have claimed would not be available until the next comprehensive spending review. That prompts the question how the Tories and Liberals managed to say that they would fund vital services in Scotland this year, next year and the year after that from the mutualisation of Scottish Water.
Our second substantial doubt about the Tory attitude to mutualisation is that many people in Scotland see it as a Trojan horse for privatisation. In other words, they question Annabel Goldie's motives in a way that I would never do. If Annabel Goldie can give me an assurance that her party has rejected privatisation, perhaps I will look with more favour on her suggestions.
The First Minister has recently returned from Ireland. He has clearly had an encounter with the Blarney stone—we wonder who was kissing whom.
The bottom line is that the First Minister presides over a Government that is thirled to state control in which ministers know best. It is a Government in which his Cabinet Secretary for Justice has a bilious prejudice against the private sector and in which his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing disdains the private sector—and the First Minister has just confirmed by his attitude to Scottish Water his Government's love affair with state control.
Is it not remarkable that the first love-in between Labour and the SNP has united them in glorious amity on nationalisation? What a time warp, and what a shame. Will the First Minister explain why every household in Scotland has to pay a massive subsidy of £100 every year for Scottish Water on top of its water bill when under mutualisation he could be giving money back?
The Irish do not need the Blarney stone for the luck and success that they have enjoyed in their economy; their independent status has caused the revival in the economy of that nation.
I saw attacks—not from Annabel Goldie, but from some of her colleagues—about making speeches in Dublin. The Conservative party should go to Dublin—as, indeed, the shadow chancellor did recently—and learn some lessons about how to run an economy successfully.
Annabel Goldie should face up to the fact that the savings that she anticipates could not be acquired this year, next year or the year after that. They would be savings in the medium term. She must admit that they could not be applied to budgetary questions in the near future.
Secondly, and most important, we have certain requirements of public services. One does not have to look that far at present—take for example the energy and electricity sector—to see the dangers of having reduced competition in a private sector network. It can lead to consumers being asked to pay enormous bills for some of the essentials of life.
Although I have great sympathy with some of the comments about and question marks over the performance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Bank of England and the Treasury with regard to Northern Rock, let us remember that Northern Rock got into the incredible mess that it was in as a private company, not as a public company. Annabel Goldie's mantra that private sector is best is not borne out by any facts of which I am aware.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-00518)
The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Today, the University of Dundee has confirmed significant job losses—more than 100 staff will be affected. Is that an efficiency saving or a cut? Will the lecturers and students who will suffer as a result be able to tell the difference?
For some time, the University of Dundee has been going through a process of looking for efficiencies in the running of the institution. That started in February 2007, when Nicol Stephen was Deputy First Minister and the Labour Party was leading the Administration.
I will mention a serious point that I noticed in the coverage today. The university expects that, at the end of the process of efficiency savings, as many people will be employed in the university as lecturers as are at the moment. That seems to be the story not of an institution in decline, but of an institution that is facing up to a difficult budgetary situation, as we all do in a responsible manner in looking to achieve excellence in higher education and university services in Scotland.
I have to say that the First Minister's funding claims were flatly contradicted this morning in The Scotsman by his own spokesman, who admitted that there will be a squeeze on Scotland's universities. The truth is that Scotland's universities are facing a record cash crisis. Since the creation of this Parliament there has never been a real-terms cut in university funding—until now, with this First Minister.
On 15 November, when I asked the First Minister about cuts to university funding, he flatly denied that there were cuts. He laughed it off and said:
"There is no such cut, as can easily be demonstrated".—[Official Report, 15 November 2007; c3468.]
Can he demonstrate it easily today, now that jobs are being axed? When university staff lose their jobs, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the staff, the university or the students—or is it the fault of the First Minister, who cut university funding? Is it their fault or his fault?
Perhaps I can demonstrate it to Nicol Stephen. Over the three years in total of the spending review period, expenditure on universities and higher education will increase in real terms. It will represent 3.18 per cent of total Scottish Government expenditure. In the spending reviews of 2002 and 2004, the figures stood at 3.13 per cent and 3.15 per cent. That indicates to me that university funding is rising as a percentage of the total Scottish budget.
On every subject that Nicol Stephen brings for discussion, he says that he wants more money. I have come across an interview with Nicol Stephen on 18 November last year. When challenged to say which other budgets would be cut to deliver the funding request by the higher education body, Mr Stephen suggested that there might be other ways to find the efficiency savings and that he had a range of proposals for more efficient government, part of which was to do with the future ownership and mutualisation of Scottish Water. Nicol Stephen's solution for higher education is to gain—in three or four years' time—savings from mutualisation of Scottish Water. Everyone in Scotland can agree that it is a good job that he is not Deputy First Minister or any part of this Administration.
Is the First Minister aware of a report in The Herald today that 100 patients are to be transferred from the state hospital? We on the Labour benches appreciate the significance of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and understand that its implementation requires considerable investment in the delivery of mental health services in Scotland. I ask the First Minister to ensure that investment takes place to enable the appropriate transfer of patients so that public safety is not compromised. Further, I ask him whether he appreciates that public interest in the issue will be substantial. Does he therefore agree that it is appropriate that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing should make a statement to Parliament confirming that appropriate measures are in place?
Any transfer of a restricted prisoner or resident at Carstairs requires ministerial approval. That is the guarantee of public safety that we have. The process that is reported in The Herald today was started under the previous Administration. I see Andy Kerr nodding. Members can be absolutely certain that public safety will be paramount in all those decisions.
Commonwealth Games 2014 (Lottery Funding)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that lottery funding could make a contribution to building a legacy for the 2014 Commonwealth games. (S3F-00530)
Undoubtedly, yes. Last Friday, I launched the promised consultation document on delivering a lasting legacy from the games for all of Scotland. I made clear that we have high ambitions for Glasgow 2014 and the enduring difference it can make to Scotland as a nation.
Lottery funding was introduced to bring benefits to many good causes across the United Kingdom and thus can play a key part in helping to achieve our legacy ambitions for the games. However, as Bob Doris will well know, lottery funding in Scotland is under severe threat—perhaps to the extent of £150 million for good causes—by decisions that have been made on funding the London Olympics. It is right and proper that, as far as the legacy of the 2014 games is concerned, we should be looking for lottery support to fund those good causes in the ambit of what the lottery can do for people across Scotland.
I encourage all MSPs to read the Government's lasting legacy consultation paper and to submit their own response to that vastly ambitious document. However, such ambitions do not come cheap. Will the First Minister detail how the Government will attempt to recoup the £150 million that has been robbed from Scottish good causes by unionist MPs to fund the London Olympics and use it to assist the funding of a lasting legacy for Glasgow and Scotland from the Commonwealth games?
I should point out that the concern that I know is reflected in Scotland is shared by our colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, it was part of the discussions at the British-Irish Council last week. I am quite encouraged by the letter from the Big Lottery Fund to the Finance Committee, which said that it would
"be examining how BIG support can help create and increase opportunities to participate in and celebrate the unifying experience of the Games. This is an historic opportunity to bring Scotland's people and communities together in new and creative ways."
I hope that that indicates that we will be pushing against a door that is at least partially open. When Steven Purcell, Robert Smith and I launched the legacy document last week, we made it clear that we were not talking about the funding profile for the facilities that are already in place and that we were not talking about the infrastructure, although I am sure that Labour MSPs will have welcomed the announcement on the M74 just last week; we were talking about the legacy effect of Glasgow 2014 across the country, not just in sport but in healthy living and education, and about ensuring that that legacy effect can have the maximum impact. I hope that we can carry the support of the whole chamber in a justified demand to secure that lottery funding.
Sex Offenders (Monitoring)
To ask the First Minister what additional measures are being taken to monitor registered sex offenders in Scotland. (S3F-00519)
In Scotland, we have in place a strong legislative framework, robust monitoring arrangements and agencies, which are working together, with the expertise to protect the public from harm. A lot has been done in recent years but more is being done and can be done.
The Justice 2 Sub-Committee review into sex offenders reported in 2006. It made 33 recommendations to keep children safe, 16 of which have now been delivered in full. We are working to implement the remainder. Of the ones that are about to be implemented, I highlight the fact that we will tighten the sex offenders register to require more household and social data, including e-mail addresses and information on whether the offender lives in the same household as a child.
We are also taking forward the committee's recommendation on a public information strategy, which will include information on disclosure and other related matters.
I am sure that the First Minister agrees that registered sex offenders are among the most dangerous individuals on our planet and that we should not rule out any measure to ensure maximum protection for our communities. Does the First Minister support the pilot schemes in England and Wales that will allow parents to ask police authorities whether a named individual such as a carer or a new partner has previously been placed on the sex offenders register?
I acknowledge Paul Martin's interest in the matter through the tragic constituency case of which all members will be aware. We will look closely at the pilot scheme south of the border to see whether it has lessons for us and will certainly consider that with an open mind.
Paul Martin has asked some parliamentary questions on the matter. I welcome that. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice will provide the Justice Committee with a formal update on the report's implementation before 9 March, when his questions will be answered. We are taking substantial steps. He will acknowledge that, of the recommendations that have been implemented, we have made progress on publishing missing child sex offenders details—the details of those who have escaped from the monitoring system are now published online—and the law on bail and remand in relation to sex offenders has been tightened.
Crucially, the long-awaited decision on Peterhead prison—something about which I know a substantial amount—has been taken. We should understand that, not many years ago, we had the outstanding international example of a prison that addressed sex offenders' offending behaviour. I hope that we can return to that position with the decision that has been made on the prison estate.
What co-operation does the Scottish Government have with foreign Governments, either directly or via the United Kingdom Government, when people on the sex offenders register in Scotland plan to emigrate, particularly to nations whose regulations may not be as strong as ours or to member states or potential member states of the European Union?
The international position is that information is passed to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which informs other countries about individuals who present a high risk of offending. There is also contact with the authorities abroad through Interpol, and the police can use foreign travel orders to prohibit those who are convicted of sexual offences against children from travelling overseas. Equally, other countries share intelligence via local forces and Interpol. The police also have the power to apply for notification orders, which place UK citizens who have been convicted abroad, or foreign nationals with a previous conviction who live in the UK, on the sex offenders register. I hope that that information is useful to Stuart McMillan.
War Veterans (National Health Service Support)
To ask the First Minister how the NHS in Scotland will provide adequate support for war veterans and their families. (S3F-00521)
I am pleased to have this opportunity to underline further the importance that the Scottish Government attaches to responding to the health needs of our servicemen and women. Last week, as Murdo Fraser will know, Nicola Sturgeon issued guidance to national health service boards extending priority treatment to all veterans. I am delighted to say that she will announce today a further investment of more than £500,000 by the Scottish Government to fund a pilot initiative for mental health care to be run by NHS Lothian with partners, including the charity Combat Stress. The pilot is designed to provide better community-based approaches to the care, support and recovery of veterans with mental health needs.
The new £500,000 investment in new services represents a success for the entire Parliament but, more important, for all veterans in Scotland. The families of veterans are, of course, entitled to the full range of NHS health care in the same way as other members of the public.
I welcome the announcement of support for veterans, particularly in mental health services, in which there have been serious inadequacies in the past. The First Minister will be aware of the report of the Commons Defence Committee that came out earlier this week, which was damning in its criticism of the Scottish Government's approach to the health needs of service personnel, describing it as "totally inadequate". Whether the First Minister thinks the previous Administration or the current one is to blame for that, will he accept that it is simply not good enough and that our veterans, who have put their lives on the line for the country, deserve far better?
I prefer to approach the second part of Murdo Fraser's question by saying that, whatever has happened in the past, we must do better in future. The response of Scotland's veterans organisations to the announcements that have been made in recent months is of perhaps more interest than the Defence Committee's report. Colonel Martin Gibson, who will be well-known to Murdo Fraser as the chief executive of Erskine Homes, said in response to the Defence Committee's report:
"The Scottish Government is working well in partnership with veterans' organisations in providing information to veterans on the extension of priority treatment. There has been much positive activity in Scotland since SG officials appeared before the Defence Committee."
We should all look forward to what can be done. There have been failings and shortcomings in the past. It was unfortunate that the Defence Committee, despite being given the information, did not acknowledge the extension of priority treatment to veterans—that would have been the fair-minded thing to do—but, rather than quibble about who said what to whom, let us talk about the future. This is a moral obligation that we have as a people and as a Parliament; let us discharge it in that manner.
We started late, so I will allow a final, brief, supplementary from Jamie Stone.
This week, we heard about the gruesome discovery of an elderly serviceman—William Hunter—who died at his home in Milton in my constituency 14 months ago. The grim event raises issues that deeply concern us all. It sends out a terrifying message to the elderly and terminally ill who live alone in our communities. In a civilised and technologically advanced society, how is it possible for a housing association and the NHS to fail to follow up the disappearance of a terminally ill man? How is it possible that it takes more than a year for people to start asking the right questions?
I thank Jamie Stone for giving notice of his question. I extend my sympathy to the family of the deceased.
Jamie Stone is right that the story raises serious questions, but the facts are not altogether clear yet and it is too early to make a definitive comment. We should remember that any weaknesses on the part of the housing association or the NHS can be looked at by an independent regulator and we will not hesitate to involve him if necessary. The member is absolutely correct that the issue raises serious questions that must be addressed.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—