First Minister's Question Time
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2560)
I look forward to enjoying the beautiful scenery of Oban this weekend with the Prime Minister.
On the Scottish National Party's behalf, will the First Minister tell the Prime Minister that we are always glad to see him in Scotland? [Interruption.]
Order.
Is the First Minister aware that Mr Blair's Cabinet discussed this morning whether to replace Trident? In the chamber on 14 September, the First Minister said that he would
"come to a view on the matter and make that view very clear indeed."—[Official Report, 14 September 2006; c 27538.]
Has he come to a view and will he please make it clear?
My view is as I expressed it the last time. I also have a view about the Prime Minister's coming to Scotland. We are delighted that he is coming to Scotland this weekend and we look forward to his pointing out the difficulties that would exist in Scotland if the Scottish National Party's plans for independence came to fruition.
If the Prime Minister's Cabinet has agreed this morning—as I believe it intends to—to launch its debate throughout the United Kingdom on the future of the Trident missile system, I welcome that debate. A debate should take place. It is essential to have a debate and to discuss all the options that should be available. As I have said before in the chamber, it would be wrong at the start of that debate to rule out absolutely a replacement for Britain's nuclear deterrent, given the international circumstances in which we operate. However, people who believe that we may need to renew the deterrent should also have an open mind at the start of the debate about the possibilities that could be on offer. A debate should be welcomed. I hope that, rather than take the polarised extreme position that they have taken in advance, the Scottish nationalists might participate in the debate and not sit on the sidelines.
I remind the First Minister that the last time he expressed his position, the United Kingdom Government described it as "completely ridiculous". For once, I agree absolutely with London Labour. Is not it the case that no confused third option is on the London table and that, even if it is, it does not delay the decision that must be taken now? Back here in the real world, that decision is whether to replace Trident. As the Prime Minister confirmed in the House of Commons yesterday, the Government will not only launch a debate but will reach its decision before Christmas. Is not it the case that the time to exert some influence is fast running out?
On 22 June, the First Minister said:
"people in Scotland should have an opinion on that issue".—[Official Report, 22 June 2006; c 26857.]
I know what I think: I oppose the replacement of Trident. We know that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown support its replacement. I simply ask the First Minister what his opinion is. Is he for or against replacing Trident?
My opinion is that a decision should be taken in the light of Trident's potential to contribute to international peace and security and of the potential of alternative ways forward for not only the United Kingdom, but other countries.
I will say something to Miss Sturgeon about the real world. My position is clear, as is hers. She does not genuinely believe that she has a case to make about Trident; rather, she wants to exploit the issue to try to deliver a separate Scotland. The issue is not about deciding on the Trident missile system—it is the Scottish National Party's plans, under which Scotland would have less influence not only in the UK, but in the world, and under which there would be an economic black hole that she would be unable to fill, despite the promise to raise taxes that Angus Robertson made this week. Scottish businesses would be cut off from their main markets south of the border and economic uncertainty would be created. Potential chaos would ensue. That is the real world that the SNP wants. We will expose its plans this weekend in Oban and every day and week until next May.
I cannae wait.
Is the First Minister trying to say that he wants a decision on Trident to be delayed until after the elections so that he will not have to get off the fence? On 14 September, he said of Trident:
I will take my own view … as the months move on."—[Official Report, 14 September 2006; c 27540.]
The months have moved on, but he has not. He is still prevaricating and delaying. I draw to his attention what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons yesterday. He said:
"this issue will be less about process and more about where we stand on it."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 22 November 2006; Vol 453, c 540.]
The Prime Minister will be in Scotland tomorrow. What will the First Minister's answer be to him if he asks: "Jack, I have to take a decision on Trident now. Where do you stand on whether we should replace it?"?
Before the First Minister answers that question, I should say that, like my predecessor, I have allowed questions on reserved matters that impact on social and economic issues in Scotland and on which the First Minister has taken a public position for the Executive, for which he is responsible.
I will make three points. First, I would say to the Prime Minister exactly what I have said in public in the chamber. I have not said things in private that are different from what I have said in public.
Secondly, I would say to the Prime Minister that any decision will have an impact on Scotland—the Presiding Officer referred to such matters. Miss Sturgeon needs to consider that. Some 11,000 jobs in Jackie Baillie's constituency and beyond rest on the base, so any debate on the future of the Trident missile system must take into account the future of that base and those jobs. The SNP might want to get rid of it, but we must take a far more considered position.
Thirdly, I would say to the Prime Minister that Miss Sturgeon raises reserved issues in the chamber week after week because she has lost the argument on every devolved issue. I have been First Minister for five years. She is not brave enough to ask me questions in the chamber today on education because school results are improving. She is not brave enough to ask me questions on health because waiting times are down. She is not brave enough to ask me questions on crime because crime rates are coming down and she is not brave enough to ask me questions on the Scottish economy because it is the best in the UK, with higher employment, lower unemployment and a growing population as a result. That is why she raises reserved issues and why we will win the next election. [Interruption.]
Order.
I remind the First Minister that I exposed his failure on crime last week, I exposed his failure on education the week before that and I exposed his failure on council tax the week before that. Did any member notice that the one thing that the First Minister will not ask the Prime Minister about tomorrow is what he thinks about Trident? That was what my question was about.
In a television interview last night, the First Minister suggested that he is less popular than Alex Salmond because he has to take tough decisions. Is not exactly the reverse the case? The First Minister is not respected because he will not take a stand on the big issues of the day. Is not that why, as we see again today, more and more people think that it is time for an SNP Government with Alex Salmond as First Minister?
It is precisely because, not only do we have all these improvements in Scotland, but we have also exposed in recent weeks the SNP's plans to take more than £1 billion out of our higher education system and more than £1 billion out of local council services as well as to reduce corporation tax and leave a £1.4 billion gap in the Scottish economy, as announced by Alex Neil in the chamber last week. Compare that with the achievements that have made the Scottish economy the strongest in the United Kingdom. We have the highest employment and the lowest unemployment. We have the highest levels of research and development, the highest inward investment, a growing population and we have improved results in our schools and reduced health service waiting times. Not only is crime reducing—including news this week that the number of the most violent crimes has reduced dramatically—but we have higher clear-up rates, more police on the streets and therefore a far more effective justice system as a whole.
I tell Nicola Sturgeon that I have achieved more in five years than Alex Salmond has achieved in his whole lifetime and I will be delighted to debate with him over the next five months.
So heartening.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2561)
The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.
Last weekend, the First Minister told newspapers that he wondered whether the past five years had all been worth it. Just as the people of Scotland were breathing a sigh of relief at the prospect of his departure, the rain clouds gathered and the First Minister said that he would stay on for another five years. In his bid for the most laughable statement of the year prize, he said that Scotland was in a better position now than it was five years ago.
If that is the case, why has Scotland lost 17 per cent of its manufacturing jobs during that time? Why is the business rate poundage still higher in Scotland than it is in England? Why has economic growth stuttered at a lower level than in England? Is that really a record to be proud of?
Try and take her seriously.
I will try to take the questions seriously. I will respond to the member's first point first. I answered the question, to which Annabel Goldie referred, last weekend about my family. I want to be absolutely clear about this: of course there are times when this job affects one's family and that very deep effect makes one consider whether the job is worth it.
When I look at what has been achieved in the past five years, I am absolutely certain that the job is worth it and that my doing the job has been worth it not just for me as a person, but because my leadership has delivered better results in our schools, shorter health service waiting times and reductions in crime. It has delivered not only higher levels of economic growth than we have seen in our 30-year trend, but the highest employment and the lowest unemployment in the UK, a financial services industry that is growing far faster than in the rest of the United Kingdom and a life sciences industry that is growing faster than almost any other in Europe. There are record numbers of tourists coming to this country, rather than the plummeting levels that existed before I became First Minister, and we have a Scottish population that is growing rather than declining as it did for decades.
I tell Ms Goldie that I am very happy to compare my record with that of the Conservatives after 18 years in power in Scotland. I say to her, do not talk to us about manufacturing jobs when her party's Government decimated Scottish manufacturing and left hundreds of thousands of Scottish youngsters in poverty and their parents on the dole with no hope or opportunity for the future.
That was the same Conservative Government that created an economy that any Chancellor of the Exchequer would thank his almighty Lord for inheriting. It is very sad that the Bute House bubble is so big that the First Minister actually believes that this country is in better shape than it was when he took over.
The First Minister mentioned crime, so let us ask: what about crime? In his five years, the figure for total crime and offences has gone up. Crimes of indecency are up, rape and attempted rape are up, and fire raising and vandalism are up. Handling of offensive weapons is up and the number of persons recalled to prison from licence is up by almost 100 per cent. That is what the Executive's own statistics show. Is that really a record to be proud of?
That is simply not true. The reality about crime in Scotland today is that 20,000 fewer crimes were recorded by the police last year. Housebreaking has fallen for seven successive years. There were 1,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime last year and violent crime is at its lowest level since before devolution. The number of homicides fell by almost 30 per cent last year and clear-up rates for crime are up: today, 46 per cent of crimes are solved, compared with less than a third in the 1980s, when the Conservatives were in power.
Crime is a serious issue—it deserves serious debate. The Executive has brought in many changes. We are reforming our courts, improving sentencing and tackling drug crime while ensuring that fewer people get onto drugs and that more people are coming off drugs. We are ensuring that more police are out on the streets, doing the job that they signed up to do, and we are ensuring that we have tougher community sentences, which means that fewer people are reoffending. In all those examples and more, our justice system is delivering for Scotland because we made it the top priority for legislation in this parliamentary session.
So, the Bute House bubble has obscured the sluggish economy and is making the First Minister believe that Scots are safer than they were five years ago. It must be the best small bubble in the world. However, even it cannot hide the First Minister's performance with regard to our public services. In-patient waiting times are up by a quarter, several hospitals have been run down or closed, nearly 8,000 more people are without a dentist, physical attacks on teachers have risen by a quarter in the past year alone and, in most local authorities, more pupils are now failing to meet the Executive's minimum standards in reading, writing and maths. Is that really a record to be proud of?
That is simply not true. As I have already said, Scotland's employment rate is not only among the highest in Europe but is the highest in the United Kingdom. Not only do we have lower levels of unemployment than we had during the Tory years, but we have the lowest unemployment rate in the UK.
Not only do we have record numbers of tourists, a booming financial services industry and a booming life sciences industry, but we have a growing population, higher research and development spend, higher inward investment and a higher job count than anywhere else in the UK. Furthermore, we have a falling crime rate—the overall crime rate is 27 per cent lower than it was at its peak. We have a record number of police officers—more than 16,000—with more of them out on the beat, doing their proper jobs in the community, and we have 500 community wardens, the introduction of which the Tories opposed.
Furthermore, the figure of 22,000 drug seizures shows that those seizures are up 21 per cent since 1999. With regard to health, we know that we have the best-ever waiting times for in-patients and out-patients, that there have been improvements in survival rates in Scotland's three biggest killers and that we have introduced a ban on smoking in public places that the Tories opposed but which the chief medical officer has said could result in Scotland being be a far, far healthier place 20 years from now.
Finally, with regard to education, our 15-year-olds are among the highest performing young people in the world in maths, literacy and science, and we know that the number of students who stay in Scotland after their graduation is up 10 per cent since devolution. Far more of our secondary school pupils achieve the excellent standard of reading and writing that we want them to achieve than was the case not only five years ago but seven and a half years ago.
In all those areas, this Government is delivering for Scotland—not for devolution, but for Scotland—in a way that the Tories could never have dreamed of.
The First Minister will have read of the disturbing case of the young child who was rushed to hospital last week from a flat in Wester Hailes in my constituency when it was suspected that the child had swallowed heroin. Four other children have been taken into care. However, as we are all aware, this is not the only time such an incident has occurred recently. Therefore, will the Scottish Executive undertake an urgent review of policy in relation to the thousands of children in Scotland who live in families in which drug addiction and drug abuse are rife and ensure that the protection and welfare of those children is the overriding priority?
As David McLetchie knows, I understand his concern as the local MSP and I share that concern. However, I hope that he is aware that we reviewed the policy and that a new policy was circulated to the relevant agencies at the beginning of the summer. It is vital that they take that policy on board.
I cannot say too much about the case in question, but I think that the issue may be more about the alleged drug taking of the families than about what the child herself took. It may also be about the way in which the children in those families have been looked after in the past and how they should be looked after from now on.
It is essential that when the responsible local authorities identify problems in a family—whether they are linked to drug addiction or to any other factor—that lead to children being in danger or requiring care, they do not hesitate to take action. The lesson that has been learned, not necessarily from the case to which David McLetchie refers—the facts of which still need to come to light—but from recent cases in other parts of Scotland, is that hesitation can be lethal for the children involved. I want agencies to act more promptly and to put children first at all times. Our new guidance certainly asks them to do that.
Public-private Partnerships (Competition)
To ask the First Minister whether there are sufficient economic operators within the PPP contract market in Scotland to ensure that the requirement for genuine competition is achieved in relation to every contract. (S2F-2565)
The PPP market in Scotland has strengthened recently. We are now seeing increased competition for PPP projects, with three or more consortium bidders for health and schools projects. There are variations in market response across the sectors and in different parts of the country. It is now standard practice to review prospects for every PPP proposal before procurement commences.
The First Minister will be aware that the European public sector procurement law and the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/1) require genuine competition for PPP contracts. He might not be surprised if I refer to the North Ayrshire Council schools PPP contract. Is he aware that there were only two bids for that contract, one of which was identified by the council's advisers as being non-compliant at the first key stage review, and that the evaluation report that was produced at the first key stage review recorded that the council's advisers
"had been unable to satisfy themselves that the … bid has sufficient financial or economic standing to pass evaluation at this stage of the process"?
Does the First Minister therefore accept that there was no competition for the North Ayrshire Council schools PPP contract?
I would be happy for Campbell Martin to receive a detailed response to his points from the relevant minister.
I want to make two points. First, as I understand it, Mr Martin has made a number of allegations about that contract and when investigations have taken place, those allegations have been found to have no foundation, so he should hesitate to make such claims in Parliament.
Secondly, it is important to recognise that public-private partnerships, whereby local authorities and health boards work with the private sector to secure improved facilities in education and in health, are now a tried and tested method of securing competition for contracts and of ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. However strongly Mr Martin and his former colleagues in the SNP might oppose the new PPP buildings, the reality is that we have better hospitals, better schools and better facilities for our young people and our sick and elderly people than we have had in Scotland for generations. Over the coming months, we will defend the importance of those facilities in education and in health from the threat that is posed to them by the Scottish nationalists and their former supporters.
I should clarify that some complaints are still with the Lord Advocate and the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock, so the matter is not closed.
As the First Minister will accept, the Scottish Executive is responsible for the money for PPP contracts. However, is he aware that when I asked the Executive's scrutineers, Partnerships UK, why it had allowed the North Ayrshire Council contract to proceed on the basis of two bids, one of which was non-compliant and should not have been allowed past the first stage, the chief executive, Mr James Stewart, said:
"In this instance, the Authority"—
that is, North Ayrshire Council—
"did not consider it necessary to provide the Evaluation Report"?
Does the First Minister accept that North Ayrshire Council did not provide the Executive's scrutineers with the necessary information to ensure that there was competition? Moreover, will he agree to meet me, or instruct the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform to meet me, so that I can inform the Executive of what exactly has been going on with the North Ayrshire Council schools PPP contract?
In addition to the comments that I made last weekend about my family, I said that I was older and wiser. One thing that I have learned in this job is never to respond to a quotation until I know whether it has been taken in or out of context. It would be better if Mr Martin provided us with all the information that he claims exists, and we will ensure that he receives a detailed response.
Child Poverty
To ask the First Minister what action is being taken to tackle poverty among children, in light of recent reports. (S2F-2570)
Since 1997, more than 200,000 children in Scotland have been lifted from absolute poverty, and the proportion of children in relative poverty has fallen from one in three to one in four. We are making faster progress than the rest of the UK towards the aim of ending child poverty by 2020. To take more youngsters out of poverty, we need to create even more jobs, improve child care and education further and complement the United Kingdom tax changes, which benefit the poorest families.
Does the First Minister agree that it is unacceptable that the Executive's excellent progress on tackling child poverty might be totally undone by huge fuel price rises? Does he also agree that Npower's suggestion that parents should make their children wear their socks in bed, which was drawn to our attention just this week by children's charities, is an unacceptable response? Does he agree that energy companies should follow Scottish and Southern Energy's lead and introduce cheaper tariffs and a package of support for customers who are in severe fuel poverty? Finally, does he agree that all energy companies must do more to meet their social obligations to help the 100,000 children whose families have been pushed into fuel poverty by their huge price rises?
I want to praise energy companies that have, despite the current challenges in the energy market, decided to make provision to meet their wider responsibilities and have ensured that those who are in most difficulty receive better support, guidance and—in some cases—tariffs.
The member makes the valid point that such form should be shown by all energy companies. I hope that all companies that provide energy, particularly to domestic consumers, understand the impact of their policies and pricing strategies on the poorest families over the winter and, indeed, that others follow the example of companies that have taken their responsibilities seriously and have demonstrated best practice.
I will try to get in three more questions and supplementaries if they can be kept short.
Given what the First Minister has just said, does he agree with the comments of Jane Gibreel, Save the Children's programme director for Scotland, who said:
"It is an outrage that in Scotland, parents are being forced to make impossible decisions between such basic provisions as providing a hot meal or putting on the heating"?
Given that fuel prices have risen 87 per cent in three years and in the light of Sarah Boyack's comments, does the First Minister support my call for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend to low-income families the winter fuel payment that pensioners currently receive?
I am sure that, in the pre-budget report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make provisions that take account of all factors. However, we must not divert attention away from ensuring that the energy companies accept and face up to their responsibilities.
That said, we must also have a balanced package of measures that remove youngsters from poverty, rather than simply help them to survive in it. That is why it is important to balance aspects such as work, education, child care and the tax and benefit changes that have ensured that, over the past nine years, 200,000 children in Scotland have been lifted out of poverty and the proportion of children in relative poverty, which is by far the most serious measure of poverty, has fallen from one in three to one in four.
Education Authorities
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive considers that the number of education authorities should be reduced. (S2F-2571)
We have initiated a wide-ranging debate regarding alternative models of public services provision to ensure that they are efficient, high quality, joined up, user focused and accountable.
This appears to be yet another issue on which the First Minister has not made up his mind. Regardless of the differing views on that issue, does the First Minister believe that the action of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in suspending the Headteachers Association of Scotland as advisers was sensible? Does he think it is a good idea for people to take advice only from those who agree with them?
It is absolutely essential that COSLA take advice from head teachers, and that we take advice from head teachers in a balanced and appropriate manner.
European Crime Policy (United Kingdom Veto)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has had contact with United Kingdom Government ministers regarding reports that the European Union wishes to end the UK veto on crime policies. (S2F-2563)
Ministers and officials regularly discuss a range of European Union issues with colleagues in the UK Government.
We are committed to working co-operatively with our European partners in the fight against serious cross-border crime. We are open to engaging in discussion on how that co-operation might be improved, although, as I said in reply to almost exactly the same question from Phil Gallie on 28 September, we remain to be persuaded that changing decision-making procedures in the area is the right way to go.
As the 300th anniversary of the union of our Parliaments approaches, will the First Minister accept my compliments on the way in which he has robustly defended the union?
Will the First Minister undertake an equally robust defence of the independence of the Scottish justice system, as determined by the Act of Union 1707, thus ensuring that there is no further erosion of the independence of the Scottish criminal justice system by the European Union?
As I think I have already said in response to such questions from Phil Gallie, the key principle in cross-border co-operation between the European Union states on matters of crime and justice is co-operation. It is right and proper that whatever arrangements are put in place respect absolutely the traditions and the success of the Scottish justice system. I thank Phil Gallie for his recognition that the Scottish justice system is in such a strong condition today.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—