Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, December 22, 2011

Official Report 1091KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. May I say how delighted and privileged I am to be here? Before I start, I wish the First Minister and everyone across the chamber and in the Parliament a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year. [Applause.] And now to business. [Laughter.]

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00368)

In this pre-Christmas edition of First Minister’s questions, I congratulate Johann Lamont on her success in the Labour leadership election, welcome her to her place in the chamber today and say to her, as I said when we met yesterday, that she can be assured that, where the Opposition brings forward points of substance, the Government, notwithstanding our majority, will be prepared to take common cause. That is symbolised today in the fact that the Parliament will substantially unite in expressing concern about the direction of travel of the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reforms which, instead of increasing employability, seem to be in danger of impoverishing further some of the most impoverished people in the country. Perhaps that is the shape of things to come.

Where it is possible for us to work together, I assure the First Minister that we will do that, but it is also our responsibility to oppose and challenge him.

It is Christmas, and a time when we are all looking forward to spending time with our children. Certainly, I have seen less of my own recently than I might want to. It is a time that belongs to children but, for some children, there is not much to look forward to—children abandoned and abused by their parents; children like Declan Hainey. What has the First Minister done in response to that tragic case?

All cases involving children are examined by the Government and the Government keeps things under action, but perhaps Johann Lamont will want to specify the action that she is looking for, and then I will be able to tell her what the individual minister has done.

I am rather concerned that the First Minister has not already indicated what he is intending to do in response to something that is very serious. We have to ensure that the rhetoric in the chamber reflects the reality of Scottish life. When the First Minister was asked about a similar tragic case—the death of Brandon Muir—he said:

“we have the most systematic and strenuous inspection system certainly anywhere in these islands and perhaps anywhere in Europe.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2009; c 18904.]

Does the First Minister still believe that that is the case? Does he agree that the reality is that it was not good enough for Brandon Muir or Declan Hainey and that it is not good enough for scores of children whose names may never appear in the papers but who are suffering now?

I remember the Brandon Muir and Declan Hainey cases very well. The point that I made in the Brandon Muir case was that we have in place a systematic way of trying to identify children at risk. I also made the point that no system can be foolproof and that there will be individual tragedies almost regardless of what system is in place but that we have reinforced the support to local authorities and social work departments to enable that systematic way to be followed.

I reiterate another point that I made on the Brandon Muir case. I stressed that there was often a tendency to blame social work departments and see their failings. Of course, where there are failings, they must be examined and, in that case, they were systematically examined in the correct fashion. However, members must understand another point, which is that we have a substantial system and excellent social workers in Scotland who subscribe to the highest standards and are a professional group of people. However substantial we make our system and whatever the sincere efforts of our social workers, there will always be tragic cases—that is a certainty in society. Our job as parliamentarians is to give the maximum support to our social work departments and to their professionalism to ensure that our systems of inspection are such as to minimise the number of tragic cases and therefore minimise the effect on society.

I want to believe that that system is in place and that our children are safe, but we know that that is not the case. We cannot simply say that there is an inevitability about this. The responsibility of Government in this kind of case is to identify where the challenges are, where the problems are and what we can do to address them. It is not about blaming the workforce; it is about recognising that, for all of us, whatever systems are in place, they are not sufficient. Throughout Scotland, we have social workers who are overburdened, health visitors who are under pressure and the inevitability of children who have been abandoned by their parents being abandoned by a system that is supposed to care. We all know that budget cuts will only get worse, so what is the First Minister going to do in his budget choices to ensure that the most vulnerable children in our country are protected?

The system of inspection has been substantially enhanced and improved. That has been validated by the reinspections that take place. In the substantial majority of cases in which there have been faults and difficulties in individual local authorities, there has been huge improvement on reinspection. The Government put those things in place to try to correct the failings of a system that was already in place, but parliamentarians and political parties have to understand that, however we attempt to improve such systems to protect every single child in Scotland, there will still be tragic cases. In terms of budget choices for disadvantaged children, perhaps Johann Lamont would like to welcome our initiative to give looked-after two-year-olds access to nursery education. It is the first time that that has been done in these islands. That is a budget choice that we have made and I am sure that Johann Lamont would like to reflect her support for it.

Of course, I support that kind of thing, but this child was not in care; that is part of the difficulty. The child was in the family home. The danger is that we have a counsel of despair that there is nothing that Government can do. We all know that, if we work together and are honest, we can get this right, but we cannot afford a gap between what we say we care about—our rhetoric in the chamber—and the reality in Scotland’s homes. There has to be a connection between what we say and how people live, so I am asking the First Minister to have an independent inquiry into how our most vulnerable children are being affected by the budget choices that his Government has made. Surely it is possible, recognising the scale of the challenge, to test our budget choices by their capacity to protect the most vulnerable in our communities.

I am not certain that the direction in which Johann Lamont has taken her question reflects her aspirations at the start of the question session. In terms of budget choices, the settlement for local government has protected it against the average cut—the local government settlement is much better than the settlements for areas under direct Government control, for example—which indicates our view of the value and worth of social work and other departments. As for the inspection regimes and the improved system that we have established compared with the one that we inherited, most people across social work would say that, regardless of the fact that we will always have individual tragic cases, nonetheless the system is far better than it was some years ago and the system of inspection and reinspection is proving its worth.

I mentioned looked-after children and two-year-olds not because it was relevant to the individual case that Johann Lamont raised but because it was relevant to her question about how this Government looks on children within its budget priorities. The huge emphasis that we have given to early intervention, with a substantial transfer of funds even in this extraordinarily difficult time of great economic stringency, is an indication that this Government is concerned for every child in Scotland and wants to make the earliest intervention possible in order to establish an equality of opportunity that will do this country and this Parliament proud.

I am asking the First Minister this question as a mother. There are mothers throughout the country asking the same question. These children are hidden to the system and I am asking the First Minister what he can do. Can we have an independent inquiry into how the child protection system is working? Bits of it will be fantastic, as he says, but there is clearly a huge problem. If we can have an independent inquiry, we can work together to challenge this most awful of circumstances in our communities and make Scotland a better place for our most vulnerable children.

I point out that the improvements in the inspection regime came about as a result of such an inquiry looking at tragic individual cases and seeing how they reflected on the system throughout the country. Those improvements have been made and there is substantial evidence that, as a result of inspections and reinspections, social work departments are performing much better than they were before.

If Johann Lamont is asking for a guarantee that there will never be another tragic circumstance and that no child will ever be in that position, I cannot give that guarantee—no politician can. If she is asking what the Government has done, the systematic improvement in inspection regimes validates what the Government has done. If she is asking about budget choices, the huge input of resources into early intervention indicates that the Government cares—as the whole Parliament cares—about all of Scotland’s children.

---

Prime Minister (Engagements)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00358)

I add my and my party’s welcome to Johann Lamont on her election as the first leader of the whole Labour Party in Scotland. I also offer my Christmas wishes to members.

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

As the Scottish Trades Union Congress has revealed this week, eight of the 10 worst areas for rising long-term unemployment in the United Kingdom are here in Scotland. That news comes a week after figures revealed that the level of unemployment in Scotland is now higher than the UK average. Week after week, all that we hear is the First Minister claiming the credit when things look good but shovelling the blame elsewhere when things look bad. One ministerial job for one Scottish nationalist is not the same as thousands of jobs for the Scottish nation. Is it not time that the First Minister got his eye back on the ball and started doing the job that he was elected to do, which is delivering jobs for Scotland?

I read the STUC report and, unlike Ruth Davidson, I listened to what the STUC had to say about it. I quote Stephen Boyd, STUC assistant secretary, from the radio yesterday morning. Asked what should be done, he said:

“Well, I think we have to be very clear at this moment in time that Scotland is part of the UK economy suffering from a severe deficiency in aggregate demand. Now, that really demands a major counter-cyclical macroeconomic response, and that can only be implemented at UK level.”

Given that that is what the STUC said, some people might think that Ruth Davidson—even at this pre-Christmas edition of First Minister’s questions—has something of a brass neck to weep crocodile tears for the Scottish unemployed when her Government’s policy has a direct responsibility for the employment conditions in Scotland today.

I did listen to the interview with Stephen Boyd and to the interview an hour later, which involved the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth wriggling out of answering questions on the areas that come under Scottish Government control. I will tell the First Minister what the UK Government has done to help employment throughout the whole UK. It has reduced corporation tax, it has invested in renewables, it has established a youth contract, it has cut national insurance and it has reduced the national debt.

Let us remind ourselves of the awful facts that the First Minister is trying, once again, to run away from. Twenty-six thousand people face their second Christmas out of work, and that has happened on the First Minister’s watch. He needs to take responsibility for his actions. He has the powers that he needs to make a difference. The First Minister could be properly funding our colleges instead of ripping £74 million out of them; he could be cutting the tax burden on businesses, not hitting the biggest employers with more; he could be renewing the town centre regeneration fund instead of scrapping it; and he could be building the 6,000 social rented homes that he promised instead of cutting his own target by a quarter. The First Minister’s policies are damaging the Scottish economy. Will he finally take responsibility for the consequences of his own actions?

I have done a quick calculation, and I have counted £250 million of additional expenditure in that list alone. I shall assume that Ruth Davidson, speaking with the full authority of the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party, will tell the chancellor to put the cheque in the post, as opposed to cutting our capital budget by 32 per cent over the next three years.

Ruth Davidson referred to the fact that eight of the 10 areas with the largest percentage increase in unemployment are in Scotland. Unemployment is a huge difficulty, but that statistic includes areas such as Aberdeenshire—my area. I would love it if there was no unemployment in Aberdeenshire, but the unemployment rate in Aberdeenshire is 3.7 per cent. In this chamber, we would be celebrating if the rate was 3.7 per cent across Scotland.

The way to measure the issue is to use the level of long-term unemployment. In long-term unemployment, Scotland has two areas out of the UK’s top 30, and three out of the top 30 if long-term unemployment is measured by claimant count numbers. The first one comes in at 25, which is North Ayrshire.

That is not to say that unemployment is not a huge problem. Of course it is a huge problem, but Ruth Davidson should remember two things when talking about the Scottish economy. Proportionally, there are more people employed and more people in economic activity in Scotland than there are across the United Kingdom and, thanks to the actions of the finance secretary, the recession was shorter and shallower in Scotland than it was in the rest of the United Kingdom.

If we had the economic tools that the STUC was calling for, there would be no deficiency of demand in the Scottish economy and Ruth Davidson and her colleagues would be able to celebrate the investment that they call for but for which they are singularly unwilling to provide the means through their party at Westminster. If the Parliament wants this Government and this Parliament to have responsibility for the Scottish economy, let us unite in getting the tools to do the job for Scotland.

Is the First Minister aware that the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets has published its proposals to change the system of charging for electricity transmission? The proposed regime benefits the Highlands but not the islands. Will the First Minister raise the issue with Ofgem and encourage it to model the impact of the proposals on Scotland’s islands?

Yes. A constant preoccupation of many members for many years has been the huge discrepancy and unfairness of the present charging regime, which discriminates against many areas of Scotland and the islands in particular.

The Ofgem consultative proposals that were made this week show a move in the right direction. Although they offer fairly substantial change from the current unacceptable position for some areas of Scotland, there is no indication of any relief for our island communities so that they can mobilise the tremendous resource that they have in renewable energy. Just as the chamber has united in the past in pressing to end the discrimination against Scottish generators, I think that we should unite again to ensure that the islands of Scotland are included in the new settlement.

I associate myself with what was a fairly accurate analysis of Ofgem’s statement. I know that the First Minister is on record as saying that if Scotland, or indeed the UK, is to achieve our renewables and climate change objectives, it will require the islands to play the fullest possible part. In light of Ofgem’s recommendations this week, does he therefore agree that trying to create a charging regime for both mainland and island areas is perhaps not achievable? Does he believe that it is time to look at establishing an approach that recognises the unique challenges as well as the potential of renewables in and around Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles?

We discussed the matter with the convener of Orkney Islands Council yesterday. The Scottish Government has asked the Scottish Council for Development and Industry to host a conference on 13 January to allow island councils and renewables developers to highlight their strong case for more equality of treatment and a more level playing field for our island communities.

Liam McArthur should know that the issue is a long-standing one. It is one in which we have received considerable support. For example, the UK energy secretary, Chris Huhne, has indicated that he has great sympathy for the arguments. However, it is frustrating that, in making the progress that it has indicated, Ofgem seems to have omitted to remember that the islands are part of Scotland. Our argument is for a charging regime that removes unfair discrimination against the islands as well as the mainland. I think that that could easily be done by capping the excess amount that any part of the country is charged, so that people can have certainty that the additional amount is capped at a certain level. As Liam McArthur knows, in the current system, that is not the case, and the excess charge is subject to intense variability.

I hope that, as we go into the conference that I mentioned—no doubt with Liam McArthur’s support—we will be able to make our case, which we have already presented, unanswerable both for Scotland and for the islands of Scotland.

This week, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy decided to close the Christie ward at the Vale of Leven hospital, which is a decision that has caused considerable distress in my community, with the lack of bed capacity at Gartnavel hospital leading to patients being boarded in Ayrshire, Lanarkshire and even Livingston.

Is the First Minister aware that the cabinet secretary promised enhanced crisis intervention services, yet, in part of my constituency, those are available only in daylight hours? Will he agree to expand those services so that people who are suffering from acute mental illness are protected at all times?

The health secretary is aware of the protection that is required for all patients in Scotland. As Jackie Baillie knows, the Christie ward was closed previously for fire. That has been the current situation. She might have welcomed the decision to reverse the health board’s recommendation on the Lightburn hospital, which was also made this week. Of course, the provision of patient care is uppermost in the health secretary’s mind. In a pre-Christmas spirit, I say as gently as possible to Jackie Baillie that I do not think that hospital closures around Scotland are the Labour Party’s strongest suit.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00367)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

I, too, welcome Johann Lamont to her position.

Last week, the First Minister promised that he was taking seriously the £1 billion youth contract to help young people into work. However, during a long radio interview that I listened to yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth did not even mention it. Will the First Minister set out how many Scottish businesses and young people could benefit from the youth contract?

I gave Willie Rennie an answer to that question last week, saying that we will be delighted to co-operate with the youth contract. However, he seemed to suggest that our pointing out that the consequentials amounted to some £6 million a year was an unreasonable thing to do. I also pointed out that, in addition to the £18 million over the next three years, we had added £12 million to give Angela Constance additional resources and firepower to help with the youth employment initiative.

Willie Rennie should understand that he should take yes for an answer. I have been following his tweets on this matter. [Interruption.] All right, I am his only follower in the whole of Scotland. I am fully aware of his concerns. I said it last week and I say again today, for the third time—the cock is crowing—that the Government will co-operate with the youth initiative. We would like those powers to be with this Parliament, but we will co-operate in the interests of the young people of Scotland. Will he now take yes for an answer?

The First Minister must be judged by his actions. I accept that he says that he will support the youth contract, but will he actively promote it? The answer to my question is simple.

The youth contract can benefit 160,000 young people. The suspicion is that the Scottish Government is soft pedalling the policy because it was not its idea. By engaging with and promoting the policy, the Scottish Government can do something positive for young people. It also still has in its pocket £67 million from the UK Government. The First Minister can use that to reverse the cuts to colleges. He should take the steps that he can, rather than whingeing about the ones that he cannot.

Can we have a question, Mr Rennie?

The First Minister has had a great year.

Members: Yes!

Order. Settle down.

Will the First Minister finish off the year with some good news for other people? Will he embrace the youth contract and save colleges?

In terms of the youth contract, yes, yes and yes again. In terms of colleges, Willie Rennie will have seen the wide welcome for the initiative and transformation fund in the college sector two weeks ago.

I confess that I have been a follower of Liberal Democrat tweeting—not just of Willie Rennie but of Andrew Page, the former Liberal candidate for Renfrewshire North and West. In looking at Willie Rennie’s attacks at First Minister’s questions, Andrew Page said:

“Rennie’s attacks on the SNP leadership have been weak and played directly into Salmond’s hands while making our party appear small-minded, tribal and idiotic ... it is no surprise the public aren’t attracted to our broader message.”

In the interests of the Christmas spirit, I will disassociate myself from that Liberal candidate’s criticism.

In the interests of the Christmas spirit, I think the First Minister should focus on the needs of the unemployed, rather than making cheap remarks about other politicians.

They were not my remarks; they were the remarks of a Liberal candidate.

In terms of youth unemployment, Willie Rennie will know that the 16-to-19 guarantee is unrivalled anywhere in these islands: a training place, an opportunity for anyone not in employment, full-time education or an apprenticeship; the mobilisation of contract power to enable us to look at contracts in terms of what they provide for Scotland’s young unemployed; and, above all, the 25,000 apprenticeships—60 per cent more than the level we inherited—which I am delighted to tell the chamber have been fully contracted by Skills Development Scotland. That is something for the whole chamber to welcome.

---

Rural Communities (Online Delivery Charges)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the financial impact on rural communities of higher delivery charges for online deliveries. (S4F-00378)

This is a hugely important issue and one that obviously has great resonance at this time of year. The Scottish Government fully supports Citizens Advice Scotland’s calls for online retailers to sign up to a three-point pledge: to comply with the law by clearly displaying delivery costs; to ensure that any charges are based on actual costs incurred; and to offer delivery via Royal Mail wherever possible, which offers a flat-rate service throughout the country for all parcels up to 20kg. People living in rural parts of Scotland are entitled to fair treatment and should not be penalised or discriminated against simply because of where they live.

Improbably, constituents of mine in Stonehaven—a mere 15 miles from Aberdeen—are being charged extra despite the fact that the delivery stations are on the south side of Aberdeen. Is there anything that the Scottish Government can do to support trading standards officers across Scotland to put an end to these unfair delivery charges?

Fergus Ewing has written this week to the responsible United Kingdom minister, Ed Davey, to ask him to review the current situation and see what measures can be taken to ensure that online retailers adopt a much fairer pricing policy across the country.

I noted in The Inverness Courier this week that our man in Westminster, Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was calling for such an initiative. No doubt Danny Alexander will not just be calling for it but will be having a word with his parliamentary and Government colleague Ed Davey so that something is done about it, to help the rural communities of Scotland.

---

Access to Justice (Local Court Closures)

5. To ask the First Minister what impact the proposed court closures will have on local access to justice. (S4F-00376)

There are no such proposals to close courts.

That is a very interesting response. The First Minister will be aware of comments reported from within the justice system this week that the visible local delivery of access to justice is vital for local communities, witnesses and victims of crime and would be threatened if such court closures happened. As a pre-Christmas present to people living in rural Scotland and indeed in small towns such as Stonehaven and Haddington, will he give us an assurance today that local access to justice will be protected and that those communities will not face the threat of court closures, not just now but any time next year or in the course of this session of Parliament?

I know that Lewis Moonie—I beg his pardon; I mean Lewis Macdonald—is new to his current position, but he does not have to rely on information from within the justice department. He just needs to look at the evidence of the Lord President to the Justice Committee on 1 November. The Lord President confirmed that consideration of these issues is at the “very early stages”, that

“Implementation is some distance down the line”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 1 November 2011; c 391.]

and that no final decisions about possible closures of sheriff and justice of the peace courts could be taken without local consultation and, ultimately, the approval of the Parliament. That was the evidence to the Justice Committee, which says that the Lord President is very much aware of the sort of concerns that Lewis Macdonald has expressed.

Further to that evidence from Lord Hamilton to the Justice Committee, will the First Minister confirm that the Lord President will also consider the costs of travel and practicalities for witnesses, police and sheriffs of any redesign of access to justice, particularly in rural areas such as Peebles?

I do not want to be drawn on the Peebles point, although I well understand why Christine Grahame should represent her constituency interest.

Access to justice is critical to our court system. It is critical in the location of courts, which is exactly why the Lord President expressed his views on the matter in the manner that he did. That evidence to the Justice Committee is a fair statement, particularly in saying that no decisions will be taken without local consultation and that any decision requires the Parliament’s final approval.

---

European Fisheries Negotiations

6. During yesterday’s statement on fisheries—

You need to ask the question, Mr McGrigor.

I beg your pardon. To ask the First Minister how Scottish fishermen will be affected by the outcome of the European Union fisheries negotiations. (S4F-00361)

The Scottish Government achieved many of its key priorities in tough negotiations. Crucially, we avoided the situation in which a recalculation of days at sea would have decimated the Scottish fleet, and there was progress on access to additional stocks. However, it is disappointing that the effort limitation plan and the widely discredited cod recovery plan are going ahead. That was not a success in the summit. As Richard Lochhead pointed out yesterday, the negotiations were a mixed bag. Some key priorities were achieved, but there was one substantial disappointment.

Mr McGrigor, you can ask your next question now.

During his statement on fisheries, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead, said that

“common sense was no match for the legal straitjacket”—[Official Report, 21 December 2011; c 4908.]

of the cod recovery plan and described his frustration at not being able to secure a pause in automatic yearly cuts in days at sea. He said that the United Kingdom delegation was supported by France, Germany and Spain in its efforts towards achieving that. However, despite not being isolated in Europe, the result is bitterly disappointing to the Scottish fleet.

What will the First Minister do to help Scottish fishermen to cope with the cuts in days at sea? Will he specifically assure the Parliament that the Scottish nephrops fleet will be provided with additional support to help it to deliver the highly selective gear that will allow it to continue to catch white fish, which are an important element of the sector’s income?

As Jamie McGrigor knows, we must all learn to say langoustine because nephrops command a greater price in the marketplace when we call them langoustines.

I wonder whether it would be useful for Jamie McGrigor to have a word with the UK fisheries minister, whose press statement I have here. It is entitled “UK secures victory in European Union fisheries negotiations”, so there seems to be something of a cross-border impasse between Jamie McGrigor, who bemoans the lack of success, and his party’s fisheries spokesman, who believes that he secured victory.

The truth is that vital things were secured, thanks to the negotiating talents of Mr Richard Lochhead. However, it is also true that there was a major disappointment in the days-at-sea limitation. I ask Jamie McGrigor to consider that the policy area in which there was a major disappointment is the one that affects the United Kingdom more than any other fishing community in Europe. Is it not significant that the failure in negotiations was in that area, in which we really needed friends to row in and support us?

With that answer, I hope that Jamie McGrigor will be able to reconcile the variance in Conservative Party fisheries policy and recognise that Scottish fishermen are perhaps paying the penalty for the Prime Minister’s reckless behaviour.

That ends First Minister’s questions. The next item of business is a members’ business debate. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.