Plenary, 21 Dec 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, December 21, 2006

Official Report 753KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I wish the First Minister a speedy recovery and everyone else a very happy Christmas.

To ask the Deputy First Minister when he—or indeed the First Minister—will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2629)

I add my good wishes to those of Nicola Sturgeon and wish Nicola Sturgeon a merry Christmas and a very happy, prosperous and successful new year in her continuing role as the leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament.

Neither the First Minister nor I have any plans to meet the Prime Minister before the new year.

On a serious matter, does the Deputy First Minister share my concern that the number of schoolchildren being recorded as drug abusers has more than trebled since the Labour-Liberal Executive came to power in 1999?

I share concern about any rising trend in drug abusers. It is important to emphasise, though, that the Executive has made significant progress in that area. Significant additional funding has been made available for drug treatment in Scotland. The amount invested in 2000-01 was £12.3 million; in 2005-06, it had risen to £23.7 million. Drugs in our schools and our prisons is a vital issue for the future of Scotland.

I am the father of four young children. Parents often say to me, "You're lucky—your children are still at primary school. We have teenage children and we have to face up to this problem now." My concern is that by the time my children are in secondary school, the problem should have got better rather than worse. That is a big challenge for Scotland and for everyone here, because of global trends. We see the scale of the issue throughout Scotland, the United Kingdom, Europe and the world. There are rising problems—for example, the recent statistics on cocaine use—but there are also some encouraging trends. Through the concerted efforts of education authorities, drug treatment facilities and health boards in Scotland, we are making progress, but we can never be complacent on this issue and we have more work to do.

Indeed. I draw the Deputy First Minister's attention to figures that have just been published. Is he aware that, in 1999, 53 schoolchildren under the age of 15 were reported to the Scottish drug misuse database and that there have been 188 such reports this year? Since 1999, 1,000 schoolchildren under the age of 15 have been recorded as drug abusers. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that those figures are not progress, that they are deeply shocking and that they should sound a loud alarm bell about the effectiveness of current policies to tackle drug misuse among children and young people?

I agree that those figures are shocking. Firm action is required to tackle the issue. Drug-misusing parents must take their responsibilities seriously so that their children do not follow. There should be cross-party consensus that action must be taken on the issue. This should not be a party-political issue that divides the parties. Some tough decisions require to be taken. The Executive is facing up to the issues and is currently debating the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the young person who might be affected. As in all other areas of policy, the rights and best interests of the child should be at the centre of our decision making.

If there are young people who are abusing drugs in Scotland, we need to find out about them and to be able to take firm action. I finish where I started: the increases are a worrying trend, but one is too many and we need to work together to take action to tackle the problem, which afflicts too many parts of society and too many communities in Scotland.

I hope that we can find some consensus today. Does the Deputy First Minister share my concern that the Executive is not taking firm action? I remind him of an exchange between the First Minister and me in early February this year. Does he recall that I expressed deep concern about the withdrawal of all dedicated funding for drugs education in our schools? The First Minister said that he was about to receive a report on the effectiveness of drugs education that, to quote its remit,

"will be of value to … policymakers and schools".

That report has been submitted to ministers but, nearly a year later, it has still not been published. In light of the shocking figures that show that young people are abusing drugs, will the Deputy First Minister agree to publish that report today?

I believe that that report should be published in due course. It is currently with the Minister for Education and Young People.

It is important that we do what the Scottish National Party called for in June, when it demanded a summit on the issue and called for co-operation, not confrontation, on it. Last week, we had a statement from the SNP that it is time for a Scottish drugs commission to reach a consensus on long-term action. I can support that policy and both of those calls, but the problem requires concerted effort on a variety of fronts. It requires more to be done on drugs education, on enforcement, on support for rehabilitation and treatment and on drugs seizures. For example, we have had record drugs seizures, worth more than £20 million, this year.

There are some positive trends, but there are also some worrying issues. Nicola Sturgeon has rightly identified the rising figures of young people in our schools who are abusing drugs. That is of concern—it worries all members—and it is important that we take concerted action on it together over the coming months.

I hope that the Deputy First Minister agrees that, to enable us to start making informed decisions, a report that has been with ministers for almost a year must be published with no further delay. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the problem is not only in drugs education but in access to drugs rehabilitation? In 2004, the First Minister promised

"a comprehensive improvement of drug rehabilitation services"

but, today, people are waiting longer for help. For example, is the Deputy First Minister aware that, in 2004, 23 per cent of people had to wait more than 14 days for access to community rehabilitation but, today, 54 per cent of people wait more than 14 days? Does the Deputy First Minister accept that that is another failure to deliver on the part of the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive? Will he explain the reasons for it? Communities throughout Scotland are paying the price right now.

I have already emphasised that there should be increasing consensus between the parties on the matter. The parties have worked together on this really important issue in the past. The SNP called for that consensus and I underscored the drive for it. Clearly, improvement—in some cases, significant improvement—is required in some areas but the situation is patchy and the trend is positive in others.

It is typical of Nicola Sturgeon to emphasise the negative rather than the positive. For example, she could have referred to the school building projects that have been completed since I last took First Minister's question time—20 in primary schools and seven in secondary schools. She could also have referred to the rising trend in teacher numbers—additional teachers can help in this issue—the rising trend in attainment or new figures that show that crime levels are dropping. There is a series of positive trends in health, education, jobs and the economy.

Drug abuse is important, but it is not an issue on which Nicola Sturgeon should seek to divide the parties. Rather, she should draw us together, particularly at this time of year.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I extend our best wishes to the First Minister and hope that a speedy recovery awaits him.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2630)

As always, the next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

During last week's First Minister's question time, the First Minister derided the concept of a local income tax. He was right to do so, on the basis that a local income tax would be a disaster for hard-working families in Scotland, costing them hundreds of pounds extra a year. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the First Minister was speaking on behalf of the entire Scottish Executive in making those statements and that the First Minister enjoys the full support of his deputy in that regard?

We should first remember that council tax went up by 40 per cent in the final five years of the last Conservative Government and that, under the current Executive, the increases have been half those that took place under the Conservatives. We should remember the First Minister's remarks on that as well.

On local income tax—if I may emphasise this with the forbearance of my Labour colleagues—the last thing the Liberal Democrats want is the centralised capping with questionable legal powers that the SNP is talking about. It would take hundreds of millions of pounds away from local councils—and education, children's services, social work and, indeed, action to tackle the problem of drugs. We take a different view from the SNP. Our policy is clear and on the record.

What a revealing answer. If I did not know any better, I would say that there might be an element of unseasonal discord between the Deputy First Minister and his boss, but let me ask him another question.

Last week, the Deputy First Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, briefed the Sunday press that the Executive is considering a welcome and overdue change on drug policy. We are told that the Executive is considering moving away from its exclusive dependence on methadone towards abstinence-based options. Will the Deputy First Minister today state his unease about overreliance on methadone and confirm his total support for the Minister for Justice's proposals?

I completely agree that there should not be overreliance on methadone or a single approach to drugs policy in Scotland, but there never has been. I have already quoted the figures. We are investing significantly more—almost double—in drug rehabilitation and treatment facilities. The number of drug treatment and rehabilitation beds in Scotland has gone up significantly.

More needs to be done. It is interesting to see the shift in the debate in recent weeks. I support that shift and strongly agree with the action that the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, has taken. There is no discord or disagreement between the First Minister and me on these issues; I fully support the improvements and the extra investment needed to tackle them.

I am pleased to witness an uncharacteristic departure from taciturnity on the part of the Deputy First Minister, and I welcome his words in so far as they say anything.

However, I am seized with unease. Does the Deputy First Minister accept that he is jointly and severally responsible for seven and a half years of rampant drugs-related crime, escalating methadone prescriptions, soaring cocaine use, a completely discredited know the score initiative, and a political vacuum on drugs strategy? Is he proud of his role in all that?

There have been some increases, but there have been some improvements as well. It is important to say that, in tackling the problem, the Executive is not in any sense complacent. The funding of rehabilitation and detoxification services has increased dramatically.

I do not think that we should take lessons on the issue from the Conservatives. Let us remember that the base from which we started was created by the Conservatives. After they had been in office a long, long time, the lack of rehabilitation and treatment services in Scotland was appalling. We are tackling that and taking action on it.

The Conservatives say that they are the champions of drug abusers and drug users in Scotland, but that is laughable. We are taking a broad range of action on the issues, which involves education, enforcement and new treatment and rehabilitation facilities. I agree that such action is overdue, but significant progress is being made. It is clear that all the parties and all members want to give the issue the highest priority, which it deserves. I hope that, rather than making cheap party-political points, we can work on the issue together.

I will take two supplementaries.

In the light of the letter from the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business to the Local Government and Transport Committee in which he withdraws support for fairer and more regular management of prostitution on the streets, what plans does the Executive have to ensure that public opinion, which is almost uniformly in favour of the management of street prostitution, is reflected in any new legislation?

It is important to emphasise that the main focus of the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill is to tackle kerb crawling. The Executive believes that doing so is vital. As for how the bill progresses, it is important that we work with members of the Local Government and Transport Committee, examine the issues that are raised at stage 2, consider carefully any amendments to the bill and move forward as effectively and appropriately as possible. The issue is significant for Scotland and is of UK-wide importance. We want to take the correct steps to create the right legal framework in the coming weeks.

The Deputy First Minister will be aware that fishing communities consider the new days-at-sea restrictions that were imposed at the fishing negotiations this morning to be a major blow. Is he aware that, in response to the outcome of the negotiations, Michael Park, the head of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, said on the radio this morning:

"This is the most blatant display of a north south divide that I have seen for many, many years … Not our Minister, but the English Minister Ben Bradshaw chose not to defend us"?

Will the Deputy First Minister explain to the chamber and our fishing communities why Ross Finnie, Scotland's fisheries minister, who is responsible for 70 per cent of the UK fishing industry and 25 per cent of European Union waters, did not have the power to defend our fishing communities at the negotiations?

The issue is important. I emphasise that Ross Finnie secured the best outcome that was possible for Scotland at those difficult talks.

The outcome on quotas is positive and reflects the strength of our Scottish arguments. The quotas for Rockall haddock, monkfish and west-coast nephrops will increase significantly. That outcome builds on the increases that we secured earlier in the autumn for haddock and mackerel, which are key Scottish stocks.

However, I fully understand the strength of feeling about the further cuts in days at sea. We should remember that the European Commission's initial proposals were for cuts of 25 per cent. We also resisted attempts to force the Scottish white-fish fleet, which has done more than any other fleet to save cod stocks, to take more than its fair share of cuts. Many of our fishermen will be able to recover lost days by signing up to better conservation methods or tighter enforcement.

I repeat that Ross Finnie has achieved in difficult circumstances the best outcome that was possible from those difficult negotiations.

Will the Deputy First Minister agree that securing an increase of 10 per cent in the west-coast prawn quota is to be warmly welcomed? That is over and above the 38 per cent that was secured at last year's summit. Does he agree that when ministers go to argue for an increased quota, the case must be based on sound and robust science and not on the vacuous short-termism that some political parties in the Parliament advocate? That short-termism would lead to the destruction of many fishing communities.

I agree. Significant improvements in quotas have resulted from the talks. However, I do not wish to understate the impact of the days-at-sea changes. I emphasise that the Commission's initial approach could have been very damaging for the whole North sea fishery.

A major focus of the deal is sustainability. In Scotland, we want to achieve a sustainable fishery by working with our fishermen, our fishing fleet and local fishing communities. That is the best way forward. I hope that as a result of the deal we will continue to have strong support from the fishing industry. Richard Lochhead quoted one individual, but I have seen other quotations from the fishing sector that indicate that, on balance, this was a fair deal in what could have been worse circumstances, given the nature of the negotiations.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2636)

The First Minister has no immediate plans to meet the secretary of state; nor do I.

No one would argue that there is no need for a road bridge across the Forth, but will the Deputy First Minister join me in condemning those who are scaremongering that the current bridge is in imminent danger of collapse? Does he recognise that the construction of an additional bridge across the Forth would simply generate more traffic and congestion, and divert very large amounts of money away from improvements to public transport between the Lothians and Fife? Does he agree that the best solution would be to do everything to secure the future viability of the current bridge, rather than bow to the wishes of the roads lobby, which for the past 25 years has been campaigning for an additional bridge?

That was three questions in one, Deputy First Minister.

I do not agree with Shiona Baird. It is important that there should be a replacement crossing of the Forth and that the Executive should make progress on the issue as quickly as possible, taking into consideration the solid technical advice that we are now obtaining. It is also important to emphasise the crucial role that the Executive is playing in reducing the number of lorry miles on Scotland's roads, for example by shifting freight off our roads and on to our railways: 25 million lorry miles have been removed from Scottish roads. With that it in mind, it is important that the new crossing should be multimodal, involving public transport as well as motor vehicles. Those are all important considerations for the Executive. We intend to make progress on the issue, not only for the benefit of people in Fife, but for the benefit of the Scottish economy and the whole of Scotland.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that interesting reply. Tavish Scott has argued repeatedly that we must have the full facts about the state of the bridge before we make a decision. The Executive commissioned five studies, the last of which will report in May next year, but we hear that, with only one study completed, the Executive has decided to go ahead with the construction of a second bridge. Why does it not wait for the full facts? If the Deputy First Minister genuinely believes that there is a case for a replacement bridge, rather than an additional bridge that would double capacity across the Forth, to be constructed, will he commit himself to coming up with a timetable for dismantling the existing bridge?

It seems to me that Shiona Baird wants a timetable for dismantling the Fife economy. We must take action on the issue and treat it with urgency. We have received three reports on the matter in the past week. That is why the Cabinet has decided that we must proceed with a replacement crossing. Clearly, a great deal of additional work requires to be done before we can deliver that. We need to decide its location and nature—whether it will be a bridge or a tunnel; both options are still open—and to work out its costs and funding. We are committed to doing all those things. The decision has been made, and we now want to make progress.

---

Education (Play Techniques)

To ask the First Minister how play techniques will complement traditional teaching methods for primary school children. (S2F-2633)

Play is vital to more effective learning and teaching for primary school children. There is clear evidence that it helps to smooth the transition from nursery to primary school and to ease children into more formal school learning. Parents, teachers and education experts support the Executive's plans to increase the importance of play in our schools.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer, as well as Hugh Henry, the Minister for Education and Young People, for his announcement earlier this week. Is the Deputy First Minister aware that learning through play is already practised with great success in many of our schools, particularly in my constituency, in East Renfrewshire, and, as the Deputy First Minister mentioned, offers particular advantages for children who are making the transition from nursery to primary school?

Is the Deputy First Minister aware that, through play, children learn to concentrate, to be resilient and to be self-confident—and, who knows, they might even have fun—but that in many communities, in particular deprived communities, some children are denied the opportunity for safe and challenging play areas? Will the Deputy First Minister look to build on this week's announcements and the lessons being learned in our schools to develop a national play strategy so that the advantages of play can be made available to all our children, not just the youngest?

I firmly agree with everything Kenneth Macintosh said. It is important that we consider his suggestion about a national play strategy. I know that Hugh Henry, the Minister for Education and Young People, will want to explore that suggestion further.

The Executive intends to issue, under the curriculum for excellence, statements of good practice in play, followed by revised guidance to education authorities, but it is not all about guidance and good practice—it is also about the adequacy of play facilities, green spaces and opportunities for play in and around our schools. I would like our approach to play to be more like that in Scandinavia, where play is an integral part of the education system. I agree entirely with Kenneth Macintosh that play can complement traditional learning techniques and bring real benefits to every child in Scotland.

---

Additional Vehicle Crossing (Firth of Forth)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive now believes that an additional crossing of the Forth for motor vehicles should be constructed. (S2F-2638)

We have received initial reports and it is clear that a replacement crossing across the Forth river is necessary to maintain that critical economic link. The new crossing, whether a bridge or a tunnel, should give importance to public transport as well as to motor vehicles.

Is it not disappointing, therefore, that the Executive has not even now made a decision to include a Forth crossing on the strategic transport projects list?

In the spirit of festive good will and inter-party co-operation, I offer two Christmas gifts to the Deputy First Minister. The first is the SNP policy to commit now to a new Forth crossing for Scotland. The second is the SNP policy to abandon the grossly expensive, complex and risky trams and Edinburgh airport rail link schemes. Would the Deputy First Minister not be more comfortable in his role as junior in my party, which is prepared to make the tough and right choices for Scotland?

I do not know how explicit I have to be. The Executive is committed to building a replacement crossing, and the tunnel option remains open. We have had clear confirmation, from various technical assessments, of the need for a new crossing.

Unlike the SNP, we will not cancel other much-needed transport projects to fund the new crossing. We will take a consistent view on the matter—we will not flip-flop like the SNP. Fergus Ewing spoke about cancelling the Edinburgh airport rail link scheme—a much-needed, vital Scottish project that the SNP used to support. Fergus Ewing spoke about cancelling the trams project, which the SNP used to support—another flip-flop. There is no consistency from the SNP on such policies.

We have an ambitious major capital spending programme for transport in Scotland, including public transport. It is vital that we make a full investment not only in that important economic link to Fife, but in the major public transport projects to which the Executive is committed.

---

Dentists (Access)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive intends to improve access to high-quality dentistry across Scotland. (S2F-2635)

We will improve access to national health service dentistry through continued investment such as the £30 million allocated for dental projects under the primary care and community care premises modernisation programme, including the recent opening of the new dental practice, outreach and training centre in Aberdeen.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that a reduction in waiting lists for dental services will be achieved by a mixed economy of NHS salaried and general dental practitioners and that more work is required to persuade general dental practitioners to continue or resume taking NHS fee-paying patients? Does he welcome proposals for up to 12 new NHS salaried dentists in two new surgeries in Coldstream and Hawick in my constituency?

Yes, I agree. We want everyone in Scotland, wherever they live, to have access to an NHS dentist. We support independent general dental practitioners who provide general dental services. However, there are gaps in the provision of service. The salaried general dental service also has a vital role to play in the provision of NHS dentists. We have introduced a number of incentives to encourage dentists to treat all categories of patient and we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of those arrangements and take further action if it is required.