Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 22, 2008

Official Report 748KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

I know that the whole chamber will want to join me in sending congratulations to that son of Govan and Labour supporter, Alex Ferguson, who led his team to such a magnificent victory last night.

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-794)

I join Wendy Alexander in congratulating Sir Alex Ferguson. I had the great pleasure of wishing him luck in person last week. I claim no credit for the penalty shoot-out; nonetheless, we can all join in congratulating Manchester United on its magnificent achievement.

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

For years the Scottish National Party has been promising to abolish public-private partnerships. It has not done so. Instead, it has unveiled three main proposals, the first of which is the non-profit-distributing model. Will the First Minister tell us who developed that model?

Who applied the model are this Government and the Scottish National Party. I know a great deal about it because I had long discussions with Falkirk Council, under SNP control, as it worked to develop the model. It was harassed, harried, blocked and tackled by the previous Executive at every stage along the way.

I have here a list because I anticipated that Wendy Alexander might come on to the subject. I have been waiting to say what is on it. It is a list of the huge £14 billion of infrastructure projects planned by this Government over the next three years. The highlight among the projects that have been signed this past year is the 14 out of 44 signed-off schools that are being moved to the non-profit-distributing model.

Among the project announcements that are to come, one of the highlights that I am sure Wendy Alexander will want to welcome is the Southern general hospital, on which there will be £842 million of expenditure using conventional public finance techniques. Beyond that, every school that has been given approval since May 2007—another nine schools—is using the non-profit-distributing model. Wendy Alexander should welcome that progress.

The truth that the First Minister avoided at such length is that the non-profit-distributing model was developed by Labour and Argyll and Bute Council and is unquestionably a form of PPP.

Let us turn to the second of the SNP's proposals—a Scottish futures trust to raise finance from the private sector. The business case says:

"how investment will be raised from the private sector has not been explored in any detail".

Why not?

Wendy Alexander did not complete the quotation from page 39 of the document that was released on Tuesday. The second part of the same sentence is about the business case, and continues:

"rather that work will fall to SFT Delivery as part of the business planning for SFT Finance and Investment."

Wendy Alexander would not want to mislead the chamber by truncating quotations.

Let us get back to the non-profit-distributing model. The previous Administration had 100 projects, including Andy Kerr's pet project of Hairmyres hospital—the most profitable project in history. One puts up a modest amount of private investment to get a massive amount of public subsidy. How does that one project out of 100 contrast with the SNP's moving NPD to the very centre of the massive infrastructure programme planned by this Government?

The proposal has been two years in the making—but no discussions with the financiers.

The third of the SNP's proposals is council bonds, which are to be the backbone of the Scottish futures trust and, according to John Swinney, will be available to pay for major projects such as the Forth road bridge. For the sake of clarity, will the First Minister confirm which piece of local government legislation allows that to happen?

The prudential borrowing powers of local government allow for bond issues. Of course, Wendy Alexander should know that, given that, over the past few years, the excellent past mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, introduced bond issues for Transport for London. Surely Wendy Alexander is not seriously arguing that that can be done for Transport for London but not for Scottish local authorities.

As the Transport for London example illustrates, the advantage of mobilising capital by bond issues is that it can be done for a modest amount of basis points above the London interbank offered rate. Unfortunately, the scandal of the PFI beloved of the Labour Party, as illustrated in the Sunday Herald, is that massive profits were given for private speculation instead of being allocated for the public good. Indeed, so disastrous has the PFI experiment been that someone recently called it

"the unacceptable face of capitalism".

That speaker was Edward Leigh, the chairman—the Tory chairman, I might add—of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. If he thinks that, will a self-proclaimed socialist such as Wendy Alexander now confirm that PFI was a disastrous mistake for which every one of us will pay for generations to come?

What I can say is that the SNP has adopted a Labour model without providing a shred of evidence that the profit levels will be any different.

However, let us try to clear up what is and is not legal. On Tuesday, John Swinney told us that these bonds could be used to build the Forth bridge. The SNP's own document acknowledges that there are legal obstacles; typically, of course, it fails to lay out what they are. The fact is that, in the First Minister's proposals, the bits that work are ours and the bits that do not are his. They are legally incompetent and financially illiterate; business has called the business case "bafflingly bereft of … detail"; builders have condemned the delay; and sources in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have called them "a joke". It is time to bury the dogma, because multimillion pound projects require certainty. Will the First Minister acknowledge that John Swinney got it wrong and confirm that the procurement of the Forth road bridge will not rely on bonds from an untried, untested and, indeed, non-existent Scottish futures trust?

John Swinney said that he would lay out the financing structure for the Forth crossing—something, incidentally, on which the Labour and Liberal parties were incapable of taking a decision—by the end of this year.

We can trade quotations. I know that Wendy Alexander, with her love of PricewaterCooperhouse—[Laughter.]—will want to acknowledge that the £100 million to £150 million-worth of savings, identified from the introduction of these new finance arrangements and validated by experts in the field, are an exciting prospect for the future of Scotland. [Interruption.]

Order. That is enough.

I would have thought that the generally acknowledged expert on such matters would be Professor John Kay, fellow of St John's College, Oxford, visiting professor of economics at the London School of Economics and, of course, member of the Council of Economic Advisers. Labour members, particularly Andy Hairmyres, should listen—and listen well—to what he has had to say. He said:

"PFI is well past its sell by date. The Scottish Futures Trust can achieve its three objectives of cheaper finance, better project management and the operation of infrastructure projects for the benefit of the people of Scotland."

The Labour Party should remember that last phrase. The trust is

"for the benefit of the people of Scotland",

not for Andy Kerr's private speculators.

In the heat of debate, it always helps if all members refer to each other by their chosen names, rather than by nicknames.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

What a pity.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-795)

I am not going to go down the road of pet names. I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future, although I met him briefly a couple of nights ago.

The First Minister certainly has a better chance of meeting him than the voters of Crewe and Nantwich do.

Yesterday, a highly respected sheriff felt compelled to launch a blistering attack on Scottish Government policy allowing the early release of prisoners. He said:

"I would be failing in my duty … if I did not make it clear that, in my opinion, judicial disposals are largely meaningless and the system is being brought into disrepute."

There we have it from the bench: confirmation that we live in the Scottish National Party's soft-touch Scotland. I know that and the public know that. Is the First Minister seriously going to suggest that that sheriff is wrong?

I notice that Sheriff Drummond's comments were, in part, supported by Lord McCluskey, who went on to point out that the system was introduced in 1993 by the Conservative Government. I hope that the whole Parliament acknowledges that there is now a substantial consensus that automatic early release should end—and it will end, as part of the wider review of penal policy that is being conducted by the independent commission led by Henry McLeish.

I looked carefully at Sheriff Drummond's remarks. The independence of mind and spirit of Scottish sheriffs, and their ability to speak, are valued parts of our judicial system. I was particularly interested in Sheriff Drummond's points about community sentencing. I am not certain that he would have seen the parliamentary answer on the matter of just a few days ago, but I would have thought that he would approve—as would Annabel Goldie, I am sure—of the fact that the plans that were announced on 27 November last year to reform and revitalise community sentences, to build public confidence and to improve the effectiveness of the system are now under way. There is additional funding of £9 million over the next three years, which was announced in the parliamentary answer to which I referred. While we await the views of the McLeish commission, and so as to move forward with, I hope, consensus, perhaps Annabel Goldie can give a welcome to that at least.

I do not think that the First Minister understood the question that I asked him. I was not talking about the broken system of community sentencing—although it is not working, and Henry McLeish is absolutely right to criticise it. I am talking about a frustrated and angry judiciary, whose custodial sentencing policy is being undermined by the SNP's soft touch on early release. If he does not listen to Sheriff Drummond, he should listen to victims and their families. Early release is being seen for the nonsense that it is, and it is rightly being attacked from all quarters.

Is the First Minister seriously prepared to limp on with the SNP's soft-touch policy of releasing more and more convicts into the community, rather than keeping prisoners in prison? Why is the Scottish Government unrelenting in standing up for criminals, when it should be standing up for victims? Enough is enough.

As I pointed out in answer to the first question, we are going to bring about the end of automatic early release. That aim is shared across the chamber. I gently made the point in the first answer to Annabel Goldie that the changes that are being introduced, which I think will be beneficial and will improve confidence in the Scottish judicial system, are changes to measures that were largely introduced by the Conservative Government in the 1990s. When Annabel Goldie speaks about other political parties, she should have an element of memory and history about who brought us into this position in the first place.

You are distorting it.

Since Conservative members are slightly annoyed about being reminded of their party's history—

We are being misrepresented.

Mr McLetchie.

—and about being reminded of the various initiatives that were drawn up when Michael Forsyth was Secretary of State for Scotland—that hardliner on penal policy—I welcome the leaflet that has been produced for the Conservative party conference. It says:

"Scottish Conservative MPs are making the difference in the Scottish Parliament. Our 16 MSPs, in less than 12 months, have delivered 12 solid achievements."

There is only one problem: it says

"Our support helped introduce the freeze in council tax",

which I thought was achieved by John Swinney, and talks of

"Our local campaigns … saving the A&E departments at Ayr and Monklands",

which I thought was achieved by Nicola Sturgeon.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-796)

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

On 31 January, I told the First Minister about a patient who had been deleted from the waiting list by Tayside NHS Board. Within 30 minutes, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing had phoned Tayside Health Board and, by tea time, the board had reversed its position. That patient has now been treated. Why, then, do we find that, after knowing about the situation at Strathmartine hospital for seven months, the Minister for Public Health took no effective action to ensure that the personal records of hospital patients in Dundee were secure? Why the difference?

The health minister took the action of notifying the health board twice and was given assurances that the matter was being dealt with. Those things are not in dispute, because the health board has put its hands up, has acknowledged the serious situation and its responsibility for it and, even more important, is introducing procedures that will prevent it from happening again. That, at least, I hope Nicol Stephen will welcome.

Last November, John Swinney announced that there would be a co-ordinated review of information security policies in Scotland. He said:

"All bodies in Scottish central Government, including the NHS, are being asked to confirm compliance".—[Official Report, 28 November 2007; c 3798.]

The Minister for Public Health, Shona Robison, sat only a few paces away from him while he made that statement. Why did she not stop to think about the piles of data that she knew were discarded in an old hospital a short walk from her constituency office? When the United Kingdom Government lost personal data, the Scottish National Party called for resignations. That SNP minister knew that personal data were strewn across corridors and got nothing done. How on earth can the First Minister have any confidence left in his Minister for Public Health when she has failed to protect her own constituents, let alone patients throughout Scotland? Will she now accept responsibility and do the honourable thing?

The health minister did the honourable thing when she drew the matter to Tayside Health Board's attention twice and was assured that steps had been taken. I have here a letter from Sandy Watson OBE DL, the chairman of NHS Tayside, accepting the health board's responsibility for the situation that arose and, more important, undertaking to put it right. I will read one sentence that might allow Nicol Stephen to dwell on the subjects of ministerial accountability and responsibility:

"The fact that the records were left behind when the building was finally sold in 2005 is unacceptable and there is now, as a result, a clear protocol in place to avoid repetition."

Nicol Stephen should remember the year—2005—and who was Deputy First Minister and should welcome the fact that there will be no repetition.

On the review of the fishing quota, which was not announced in the Parliament yesterday, will the First Minister publish the legal advice that the Scottish Government received on whether it was competent for it to impose a ban on the permanent transfer of quota? How does he respond to Mike Park of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, who has criticised the move in The Press and Journal, and Barrie Deas of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, who said that the ban had cut the value of the Scottish quota?

Barrie Deas's concerns on many aspects of fishing quotas should be well noted. He represents the English fishing industry, which, unfortunately, has lost quota after quota to the French, Spanish and Dutch and is left as a mere shadow of its former self.

What about Mike Park?

Ms Brankin. Order, thank you.

That happened at times when the industry south of the border was under substantial pressure.

What about Mike Park?

Ms Brankin. Order, thank you.

That is the most likely occasion for fishing quota to be transferred out of fishing communities. When that happens, the quota never comes back again. I am not sure that Richard Baker understands that, but if he had represented a fishing community for 20 years he would know it well.

I could cite the producers organisations of Scotland that are thoroughly behind the review of quota policy, which attaches quota to ownership and economic interest. Perhaps the most celebrated fisherman in Scotland these days is Jimmy Buchan, the owner of the Amity and one of the stars of the BBC programme "Trawlermen". This is what he said this morning about the policy:

"The future of Scotland's fishing communities and the industry that sustains them depends crucially on the fleet having access to sufficient quota. We can no longer afford the loss of quota or the costs imposed by quota speculators.

With fuel costs at a level that is beginning to threaten the viability of some vessels, action has to be taken to reduce the other costs that vessels have to bear and quota is the most important of these. We welcome this important step by the Scottish Government as it will help reduce the loss of quota to active fishermen and hence the communities in which they live."

---

Elections 2007

To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government is making to take forward the recommendations contained in the Gould report on the May 2007 Scottish elections. (S3F-798)

Our response to the Gould report highlighted how we plan to progress Ron Gould's recommendations, and the fact that we are following all his recommendations.

We are currently consulting on decoupling the two sets of elections with a view to the next local elections being held in 2012, which seems to be emerging as the consensus position. We will publish proposals on a chief returning officer in the autumn, and will consult on how to implement the other detailed recommendations that pertain to this Parliament.

After the complete hash that the United Kingdom's Scotland Office made of last year's elections, Ron Gould and the Scottish Parliament have clearly stated that they believe that legislative competence for the running of our elections should be taken from Westminster and given to Holyrood. Given that it would be unthinkable in England if, say, the European Union were to dictate to Westminster how it went about elections to the House of Commons, does the First Minister agree that the sooner that the Scottish Parliament has full legislative control of our nation's elections, the better?

As I was listening carefully to the question, I found it extraordinary that there were further murmurings from the Labour benches. I remind Labour members what they voted for on 10 January 2008, which was:

"That the Parliament"—

that is, this Parliament—

"welcomes the Gould report, including the recommendation calling for the further devolution of executive and legislative powers to the Scottish Government and the Parliament for the administration of its own elections and the decoupling of future elections to this Parliament and Scotland's councils".

That was carried by 107 votes to 16—and, if I remember correctly, the Liberal Democrats supported the resolution but did not like the decoupling aspect.

We—the vast majority of this Parliament—believe that all of the Gould recommendations should be implemented. Whatever U-turns there might be in the Labour Party on the subject of augmented devolution, we want to implement those recommendations and believe that any Parliament worthy of its name is capable of implementing, enforcing and running its own elections, just as it is manifestly clear that the Scotland Office, under the leadership of somebody whose name I cannot remember, was totally unable to do so.

Given that the Gould report sought improvements to the integrity of the ballot in the polling station, will the Government actively consider my suggestion of having a letterbox-style slot cut into the rear panel of each polling booth, so that the voter can effectively post their ballot paper—whether folded or unfolded—straight into a secure ballot box behind the polling booth?

I have to say that I occasionally get surprised at First Minister's questions.

That suggestion will no doubt be part of the consultation exercise that is currently being pursued. I do not remember it being part of the Gould recommendations but, nonetheless, it needs to be properly considered and examined.

I call James Kelly.

Apologies, Presiding Officer, but my question is a constituency question.

I am sorry, Mr Kelly; your name came up in the wrong place. We will move to question 5.

---

Fair Trade (Public Contracts)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to ensure that fair trade principles are applied to the awarding of public contracts. (S3F-811)

Although there are limitations on the ability to discriminate between fair trade and non-fair trade products under public procurement legislation, we support the guidance that was issued to all public bodies in Scotland in 2005 and which explains how public procurement can, nevertheless, support fair trade principles.

Was the First Minister concerned by this week's BBC Scotland report that several public authorities have entered into contracts with companies accused of serious abuses of workers' rights, including child labour? Will the Government first take action to ensure that products currently procured by the Scottish public sector meet minimum ethical and fair trade criteria; and secondly, will it go beyond that to include ethical and fair trade criteria in its own procurement contracts, mindful that several other European countries do that, and that the International Development Committee of the Westminster Parliament, based on evidence from the United Kingdom Government, has stated that

"there are no legal reasons why public authorities should not include fair and ethical trade criteria in their procurement practices"?

I am sure that Malcolm Chisholm knows—because he was a minister when the previous guidance, which we support, was introduced—that the challenge that we must all overcome is that under the procurement legislation, the criteria used to determine the winning bid must be linked to the subject matter of the contract, which is to say to the product and not the supplier. The examples given in the BBC Scotland report concerned local authorities. The Government is concerned about that and will consider the matter further.

In a way, I was pleased that those examples came to light because, with great respect to BBC Scotland, it was because of the Scottish fair trade forum, which this Government helped to create, and which it supported with a grant last year. I am delighted that the forum is bringing those matters to further attention, and I am delighted to continue—and indeed extend—the support that we give that forum because it is of huge importance to the people of Scotland. I will look further at every possible way in which we can enforce fair trade practice. There has been substantial progress in Scottish Government contracts. Within the full limits of the law as it stands, we will do our best to ensure that that extends throughout the public sector in Scotland.

What plans does the Government have to encourage and expand fair trade initiatives such as that in Peebles, which is proactively supported by 35 different companies and organisations?

I should have said how delighted I was to see John McAllion on television, back in the Parliament speaking on the subject of fair trade.

At the formal launch of the fair trade forum last October, Linda Fabiani announced additional funding, in addition to the core funding, to allow the forum to increase its activities, particularly in fair trade fortnight, which will impact on many local communities throughout Scotland, including in Christine Grahame's area.

The First Minister might be aware that I have lodged a motion, "No to Nestlé", which has cross-party support. Does the First Minister agree that the decision by Scotland Excel, the local government buying consortium, to include Nestlé in a framework agreement to provide bottled water to local authorities should be reviewed, particularly given ethical concerns regarding Nestlé's promotion of formula milk in the developing world?

The legal restrictions in procurement policy are precisely as I outlined to Malcolm Chisholm. I have enormous sympathy for Elaine Smith's point, but as the previous Administration also appreciated, in the normal interpretation of procurement legislation we have to link fair trade to the subject matter of the contract, which is to say to the product supplied as opposed to the supplier. As I said to Malcolm Chisholm, we undertake to consider the matter again because we are keen to extend fair trade practice to the full extent permitted by the law. I am sure that we will have Elaine Smith's support in doing that.

---

Sex Offenders (Fixed-penalty Notices)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will ensure that fixed-penalty notices are not used inappropriately in the case of sex offenders. (S3F-804)

Decisions about prosecution matters are the independent responsibility of the Lord Advocate, in her role as the head of the system of prosecution in Scotland. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for ministers or politicians to attempt to interfere with the Lord Advocate's independence.

A new system of direct measures, including extended fiscal fines and compensation offers, which this Parliament approved, was introduced on 10 March 2008 as part of the summary justice reform programme.

Fiscal fines are intended to deal with cases at the lower end of offending that would otherwise have clogged up the courts and would have been expected to result in a fine.

Guidance has been issued to all prosecutors making it clear that they should not use direct measures where there is a significant sexual aspect to the offender's behaviour that would require the intervention of the court. Serious cases, including sexual offending, continue to be given the highest priority by the prosecution service.

I agree that alternatives to prosecution for minor offences should be widely available and should be more flexible and more robust, to enable the courts to focus on more rapid handling of serious crime. With that in mind, all parties in the Parliament supported the passing of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, which the previous Administration introduced.

However, reports from the Glasgow Bar Association this week suggest that some serious crimes involving potential sex offenders are being addressed with fiscal fines, rather than a court appearance. Does the First Minister agree that simply fining potential sex offenders neither addresses the seriousness of the crime nor focuses such offenders on changing their behaviour? Will he investigate the reports with the necessary authorities to ensure that potential sex offenders are not escaping justice in order to free up court time?

I have looked into the matter, because I saw the same reports that Mike Pringle saw. I agree with the points that he is making, but I stress that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service guidance makes it clear that the recently reported examples are not suitable for direct measures. However, to answer Mike Pringle's question, I can tell him that the Crown Office will continue to monitor and review the guidance issued to its staff on an on-going basis to take account of legitimate parliamentary concern.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—