Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 21, 2009

Official Report 723KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1708)

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

The whole Parliament will wish to join me in congratulating all those who work in the national health service, who have worked so hard to meet—for the first time ever—the two-month target to treat urgently referred cancer patients. Figures released this week confirm that 95.4 per cent of urgently referred patients began treatment within two months. The national target was first set in 2001, and it was due to be achieved in 2005. I am proud that it has now been delivered under this Administration.

On Monday, convicted gunman Brian Martin got up and walked out of Castle Huntly open prison. He is yet to be recaptured. Why was a man with a long record of violence and of fleeing justice being held in an open prison in the first place?

Open prisons, by their very nature—and since their instigation in the 1950s—are designed for long-term offenders who are approaching the end of their sentences. That is what open prisons are for. Any absconding from an open prison is to be regretted. There have been three absconds from the open prison estate this year. Two people have been apprehended; the search is on for the one who has not.

When he walked out of the open prison on Monday, Brian Martin was just three years into a 10-year sentence for firing a gun during a fight in a house in Fife. His previous offences include a string of armed robberies and threatening police with a sawn-off shotgun. This is a man who was once dubbed "the most dangerous man in Britain". Will the First Minister agree with me that Brian Martin should not have been in an open prison in the first place?

Neither Iain Gray nor I can rule on the criteria for open prisons, but we can look at the figures for open prisons and abscondings over the past generation. After the introduction of the tightened regulations following the case of Robert Foye, which were announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and approved, I think, by the whole Parliament, we can now see from the figures what is actually happening in the open estate. In the last year of Labour control, there were 339 prisoners in the open estate and 79 abscondees. That is an abscond rate, as a percentage of the daily population, of 23 per cent. In the past year, following the reforms that were instigated by the justice secretary, there were 342 prisoners in the open estate, of whom 16 absconded.

In other words, although it is greatly to be regretted for anybody to abscond from the open estate, I do not think that Iain Gray is on particularly firm ground when he complains about abscondees, as the rate under the present justice secretary is one fifth of what it was under the Labour Party.

I am not entirely sure about the arithmetic there—

Oh!

Order.

Although the figures on the reduction in the number of absconds are welcome, that misses the point. Back in March last year, the justice secretary said:

"every abscond is one too many."

Surely this abscond—Brian Martin— is the one too many.

Two years ago, Robert Foye absconded from Castle Huntly and viciously attacked a young schoolgirl. Following that, Mr MacAskill said that there was now

"a clear presumption against returning a prisoner to the open estate if they have previously absconded."—[Official Report, 26 March 2008; c 7308-9.]

This is not the first time that Brian Martin has gone on the run, is it? He has had previously to be pursued using roadblocks and sniffer dogs, yet he was still housed in an open prison. Is it not the truth that Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill have not done enough to protect the public since the last such case?

I am glad that Iain Gray is not clear about the arithmetic: that applies to every subject that he raises in the chamber. The statistics on the number of abscondees from the open estate are important, and I remind him that they show a dramatic reduction. He says that that is to be welcomed; indeed it is, and I hope that that welcome applies across the Labour benches.

Iain Gray asked me to say that one abscondee is too many. Yes, it is. The three that we have had this year are too many as well, but let us recognise that, because of the firm action taken by the justice secretary, the number of abscondees from the open prison estate in Scotland is at an all-time low. Is not that to be welcomed?

I have already welcomed the improvement shown by the statistics, but the statistics also show that a particularly dangerous violent criminal is on the loose. It would be bad enough if Mr MacAskill let the public down in that way occasionally, but hardly a day goes by without another fiasco: he missed the knife summit to go to a pub in Canada, defied Parliament to cancel community courts and abandoned tough action on antisocial behaviour. We found out this week that hundreds of cases in the High Court are being delayed and that police officers are being trained in the dark at Tulliallan to save on electricity bills. He persists—[Interruption.]

Order.

Kenny MacAskill also persists with the madness of ending all six-month sentences. He has failed to protect the public from Brian Martin; will Mr Salmond now protect the public from him and admit that his justice secretary is just not up to the job?

Iain Gray says that police officers are being trained in the dark at Tulliallan. If it had been up to him, they would not be trained at all, because there would be no extra police officers. Under the justice secretary, 16,675 police officers patrol the communities of Scotland and keep them safe.

Iain Gray still does not understand the statistics for abscondees from the open prisons, so I will read out the numbers for the last three or four years of Labour control in Scotland: 71, 63 and 79 abscondees. The figure of 16 for last year is a great deal lower than was the case under any Labour justice minister.

At some point, Iain Gray will have to admit that we had the biggest reduction in crime statistics for a generation and have a record clear-up rate because we have police officers going through Tulliallan day and daily under the current justice secretary.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1709)

I plan to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland on 23 June, when he will come along to give a pre-Cabinet presentation, in line with a range of social partners who are doing so, on fighting the recession. I suspect that that discussion may turn to the impact of Westminster budgets on Scotland.

David Cameron has pledged that, if elected as Prime Minister, he will treat devolution with respect and responsibility. Indeed, if he is Prime Minister, he will offer to appear before MSPs in this Parliament to answer questions on any subject.

Can the First Minister demonstrate the same respect and responsibility? Is he big enough to put aside his gripe and grievance politics for the good of Scotland? He claims to be Scotland's voice at Westminster—although, with his attendance record, it is more of a whisper—so will he match David Cameron's pledge and offer himself for questioning before MPs at Westminster?

Scottish ministers have already appeared before Westminster committees and I have no difficulty in doing so.

I am interested to hear that the Conservative Party and David Cameron will treat Scotland "with respect". Behind that new phrase is there not an admission that in the past the Conservative Party did not treat Scotland with respect? Perhaps the secret of the long-term continuous decline in the party's fortunes in Scotland is that for years it was viewed as an anti-Scottish party, precisely because it did not treat Scotland with respect. New policies might come in floods these days, but I suspect that many people in Scotland will say, "The leopard doesn't change its spots and these are the same old anti-Scottish Tories."

It is unfortunate for the First Minister that what voters tell me and what the opinion polls reflect is very different from the image that he might like to portray.

There are two types of politician in the Parliament: those who, like the public, want devolution to work, who are in the majority; and those who, like the First Minister, want to wreck devolution, who are in the minority. Perhaps Alex Salmond cannot rise to the challenge of being a responsible First Minister. Perhaps he will always be a separatist party leader with a wrecking agenda. Does he agree that the best way to nurture a strong relationship between our two Governments and Parliaments, build mutual respect and responsibility and start to restore trust in our politics is to have a general election, to give people a say and to let them vote for change?

At last there is something that I can agree with. Let us have a general election and vote for real change in Scotland's representation in Westminster.

I do not know which opinion poll Annabel Goldie has been reading, but she shouldnae get carried away by the one that showed her ratings above Iain Gray's ratings among the Scottish public. That was not because she is going up; it was because he is going down.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1710)

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

Six hundred jobs went at Lloyds TSB Bank this week and 900 others went the week before, on top of yesterday's 300 jobs at the Royal Bank of Scotland. If that happened in one go there would be a riot, but job losses are being dripped out bit by bit. Lloyds has made it plain that headquarters functions will move from Scotland to London. It also admitted to the City of London yesterday that it will have to sell off parts of its business, perhaps even the Bank of Scotland.

Will the First Minister bring a new plan to the table to protect Scottish banking jobs?

This week's announcements from RBS and Lloyds are serious—they were not entirely unexpected but they are no less serious for that. We have been in contact with both organisations, which say that they will do their utmost to avoid compulsory redundancies, but we are talking about a considerable number of finance sector jobs.

The finance sector jobs task force, which Tavish Scott urged us to set up, is up and running, meeting and doing good work. It is engaging in dialogue not only with the institutions that are shedding jobs but with institutions that are growing in the financial sector. For example, esure has announced 500 new jobs in Glasgow, Tesco Personal Finance is establishing its headquarters in Edinburgh, there are new jobs from BNP Paribas and we all celebrate Martin Currie's recent success in gaining the long-term administration of part of the Chinese pension fund—I am not sure how much of it, but I think that we can safely say that it will be a considerable amount.

I make those points not to diminish in any way the seriousness of the job-loss figures but because we should not give the impression that the whole of the Scottish financial sector is shedding jobs. There are companies in our financial sector, particularly in pensions, life management and asset management, which are doing extremely well and robustly through the economic recession.

If the First Minister builds a genuine campaign, which is not just cross-party but across Scotland, I will back it. That should be a campaign to bring Bank of Scotland home.

Last year, the Labour Government used all the instruments of state to force the takeover of HBOS. We said that that would hit competition and hurt customers. The European competition commissioner, Nelly Kroes, whom I met on Monday, recognised that, too. Lloyds will now have to sell parts of its business. There must be a campaign for a smaller bank that serves Scotland's families and businesses, rather than taking high-wire gambles with other people's money. Can we have the Bank of Scotland back home? Will the First Minister lead that campaign?

I agree with the analysis of the dangers of lack of competition in the retail-banking sector in Scotland. We are not in charge of the decisions that will be made on whether bank assets are or are not put up for sale, as Tavish Scott well knows. However, right now, we are engaged in attempting to attract new players into the Scottish financial scene, because we have traditionally relied on two exceptionally strong banks for a substantial share of the market. Right now, we have to attract new players who are in a better financial position, and that is what we are focused on. The financial sector jobs task force is also focused on its work, looking at how skills that might be released from some institutions could transfer into other institutions.

If Tavish Scottish is asking me to campaign for and promote additional competition in the Scottish financial sector, certainly I am for that, because I think that competition benefits the Scottish people and Scottish business in the long term.

I will take a constituency question from Michael McMahon.

Does the First Minister recognise that the families of the 14 elderly residents who perished in the fire at the Rosepark nursing home in Uddingston in my constituency have been waiting more than five years now for justice and answers in the wake of the tragedy? This week, the latest attempt by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to bring charges against the owners of the nursing home failed. It now seems unlikely that the families will ever receive justice, because of the Crown Office's mistake in serving the original charges on the company that owned the home at the time rather than on the directors, who subsequently dissolved that company and created a new one to run the home.

Will the First Minister assure me, other members and, most important, the bereaved families that a fatal accident inquiry, or another form of public inquiry, will be held to ensure that answers are found and that lessons are learned from the tragedy? Will he also assure the people of Scotland that the legal loophole that allowed the company to avoid being charged will be closed—using the legislative opportunity that is provided by the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill—so that no individual director or corporate entity can escape justice in the future by using that loophole?

On the final point, Scottish Government and United Kingdom Government officials are working together on how legislation can close that loophole. I am not making a political point, but the incident happened under a previous Administration, and I do not think that it is as simple as saying that the Crown Office made a mistake. The case brought up a genuine gap in the law that must be addressed.

I have genuinely just been handed a piece of paper that was released at 11.52 by the Crown Office—I am sure that the constituency member will get a copy directly—which states:

"A Fatal Accident Inquiry is to be held to look into the circumstances of the deaths of 14 residents of Rosepark Care Home".

That was announced by the Solicitor General for Scotland today. [Applause.]

I am sure that the constituency member and, indeed, all members in the chamber welcome the fact that the fatal accident inquiry will seek to ensure that those who lost loved ones in the fire at Uddingston in January 2004 can know the full circumstances of that tragic incident as soon as possible.

I will take a further constituency question from Christina McKelvie.

Following the detention of Fatou Felicite Gaye and Arouna Gaye, what progress has been made to stop the detention of children in Dungavel detention centre in Lanarkshire and what contact has the Scottish Government had with the UK Border Agency?

The Scottish Government is engaged in extensive contact with the UK Border Agency and, indeed, with UK ministers on that issue. I am extremely disappointed that, after a period when substantial progress appeared to be made on the issue of the detention of children at Dungavel, this incident has now arisen. I do not believe that the explanations that have thus far been presented by UK ministers explain what seems to be a reversion to a previous, totally unacceptable, practice.

It is the view of this Administration—and, if I remember correctly from previous votes, of the overwhelming majority of members of this Parliament—that it is not acceptable in Scotland to detain children in an establishment such as Dungavel.

---

Curriculum for Excellence

To ask the First Minister what resources the Scottish Government has allocated to develop and support the curriculum for excellence. (S3F-1719)

We are providing the right resources for the curriculum for excellence in terms of money, time and commitment to ensure that all Scotland's young people are equipped with the skills for learning, life and work that they need in the 21st century. The previous Administration spent £10 million in developing the curriculum for excellence programme in the period 2005 to 2007. Since then, we have invested some £11.9 million, with a forecast figure of £30.1 million for the period 2009 to 2011.

We have put in place an additional year for implementation, announced three extra in-service days to support implementation, made provision for 100 additional teachers to support implementation in the classroom and supported the establishment of an implementation network, which will be led by the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. Every teacher is receiving their own copy of the new curriculum guidance, which will be enhanced by world-leading on-line resources.

I thank the First Minister for that detailed answer. However, like all members, I have heard and read the concerns that leaders of unions and councils have expressed on the resourcing of education, including the curriculum for excellence. I understand that the partnership with councils means that they are responsible for delivering education on the ground, but part of any partnership is constructive discussion. Will the First Minister give an assurance that he or his ministers will meet council leaders, including those who have made such opinions public, to impress on them the importance of passing on appropriate funding to education?

I can confirm that education budgets are, of course, a matter for local authorities. All those with an interest in the success of our children and young people can make their views known to their local decision makers. We have provided record funding settlements for local government of £23 billion for the period 2008 to 2010.

Discussions are taking place and have been arranged between ministers and local government colleagues. We have a shared educational agenda with local government, which is set out in the concordat and includes delivery of the curriculum for excellence.

Let me point to an example of how that partnership is working. I am delighted to note that South Ayrshire Council has organised for today a curriculum for excellence festival for 1,400 teachers and colleagues who are involved in making the curriculum for excellence real in classrooms. Over two venues, some 78 workshops are planned that will examine how to set about improving learning and teaching to provide the young people of Scotland with the skills for learning, life and work for the 21st century. I think that the whole Parliament should welcome such indications that local authorities across Scotland are taking their responsibilities seriously.

No doubt the First Minister has noted the concerns of the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association about how the curriculum for excellence will work in practice. The SSTA is concerned that guidance about delivery has been too vague and that resources remain insufficient. In light of that, does the Government plan to accept the SSTA's recommendation to delay delivery further until a clearer and more robust strategy for implementation is in place?

We are confident about the strategy for implementation and the enthusiasm of teachers across Scotland for the implementation of the curriculum for excellence. I have spelled out to the Parliament the increased and enhanced resources that have been devoted by the Government to ensure that the curriculum for excellence is a substantial success.

The whole Parliament will recognise that those resources are being devoted in times that do not look particularly propitious as far as public expenditure is concerned. [Interruption.] I hear the Labour Party complain about that, but facts are chiels that winna ding—there is a £500 million cut in the Scottish budget next year. However, despite Labour cuts, resources are being devoted to the curriculum for excellence, and that should be welcomed by the Parliament.

---

Young People not in Education, Employment or Training

To ask the First Minister what options will be available for young people not in education, employment or training in the next 12 months. (S3F-1711)

The Government is determined to avoid another lost generation so we are taking action to limit the disproportionate and damaging effect that recession can have on young people. Through 16+ learning choices, we will ensure that every young person has an appropriate and attractive offer of post-16 learning, including through schools, colleges, training, volunteering or non-formal learning.

I am pleased that the First Minister has mentioned volunteering as an option. However, two years ago, Scotland led the rest of the United Kingdom in providing full-time volunteering placements for young people. A month ago, Barack Obama quadrupled the number of places that are available in the United States on the programme that originally inspired Project Scotland. Unfortunately, while youngsters in Dallas and Pennsylvania will have better opportunities next year, youngsters from Dumfries to Perth will see the door closed in their faces. Will the Scottish Government reconsider its decision to end its funding of Project Scotland? Will the First Minister agree to meet the youngsters from Project Scotland who have benefited from their volunteering placements? Will ministers stop blanking Project Scotland volunteers and start backing them, giving them the opportunities that they deserve and want?

There have been regular meetings between Project Scotland and ministers. I advise the former First Minister that we are making improvements in good destinations for young people in relation to employability. The position is improving: last year, 87 per cent of young people were in positive post-school destinations—seven points up from 2003-04.

Project Scotland did some excellent work, but we must also consider value for money in volunteering and the voluntary sector. The grant in 2007-08 was £6.5 million—20 per cent of our total investment in the third sector for 2008-09. There are many other volunteering projects in Scotland. The MV awards scheme encourages and facilitates part-time volunteering and cost a total of £800,000 in 2006-07. It provided 4,400 part-time placements at around £180 a placement. Community Service Volunteers Scotland placements cost around £9,000 for a full year, including the cost of bed and board. Project Scotland placements cost £8,500 for six months and did not include accommodation costs.

Good work is being done. However, given the fact that all Governments must consider which organisations can deliver cost-effective volunteering opportunities for young people on the scale that we require and in the way that we need them, it is pretty clear that the ministerial decisions on Project Scotland were correct.

---

Teachers (Safety)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to address the recent comments made at the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association conference that attacks by pupils are the biggest risk that teachers face. (S3F-1717)

The evidence is clear that the vast majority of pupils in our schools are well behaved and a credit to Scotland. That was the consensus in the debate on school discipline on 7 May, too. The number of school exclusions decreased by 11 per cent overall between 2006-07 and 2007-08, and the number of exclusions relating to physical assault decreased by 6 per cent over the same period.

Elizabeth Smith will have seen the comments that were made by Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, in The Herald on 3 March:

"While we have problems with indiscipline, this tends to be low-level such as answering back rather than assaults."

However, any violence in schools is unacceptable. That is why the Government is preparing new guidance on exclusion, in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other key stakeholders.

The First Minister will be aware that the general secretary of the SSTA has expressed concern about the small minority of violent pupils who are being allowed back into mainstream education before they have demonstrated that they can behave properly and pose no risk to other pupils and staff. Does the First Minister share that concern?

I am glad that Elizabeth Smith acknowledges that we are talking about a small minority. The guidance on risk assessment, which was commented on at the SSTA conference in relation to pupils coming back into mainstream education, will cover cases in which a pupil has been excluded from school because of violent behaviour and what future provision is needed to ensure the safety and welfare of pupils and teachers. The improved behaviour in Scottish schools survey, which is to be published in the autumn, will also provide a clear and up-to-date picture of the approaches and strategies that are being used by teachers throughout Scotland to manage behaviour.

Would the First Minister care to speculate on why teachers now have a stress line that they can call and on whether it is entirely true to say that, because physical attacks on teachers are diminishing, the stress of being a teacher is any less?

Teaching is a stressful profession. There is a range of jobs in the public sector that have high stress levels. I acknowledge the benefits that teachers, in their professionalism, have given to Scottish education over the generations.

We take the matters that Margo MacDonald raises extremely seriously, as she knows. She and I can join together in welcoming the fact that teachers face the challenges of their profession with a good heart and a willing spirit to direct and improve the education of Scotland's young people.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—