Plenary, 25 Oct 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, October 25, 2007

Official Report 772KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-211)

With the Presiding Officer's permission, I welcome the presence of Aung Moe Zaw to the chamber. He is a senior colleague of the jailed Burmese democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. I am sure that the entire chamber will want to welcome the chairperson of the Democratic Party for a New Society. [Applause.]

Later today, I will have a number of meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland, including one to consider the potentially serious implications for the Parliament of the House of Lords' Somerville judgment.

I echo the warm welcome that the First Minister has just given to our visitors.

The previous time the First Minister and I met at First Minister's question time, he was asked about his promise to recruit an additional 1,000 police officers. In his answer, he claimed to be quoting directly from the Scottish National Party manifesto when he said:

"We will fulfil our commitment to putting the equivalent of 1,000 extra officers in the communities of Scotland."—[Official Report, 4 October 2007; c 2468.]

However, as Robert Brown has highlighted, the word "equivalent" does not appear in that section of the manifesto, so I will now give the First Minister the opportunity to clarify his earlier statement to the chamber and to confirm that he will meet his actual manifesto promise to deliver an extra 1,000 police officers.

The point I was making was that we said on page 58 of our manifesto that we would set out our plans in our first budget for Scotland. Our first budget for Scotland will be on 14 November. When we set it out, including our plans for recruiting additional police officers, we will realise the commitment of the SNP against the commitment of the Labour Party, which I remind Wendy Alexander was for zero police officer recruitment in Scotland.

I think that we have all now learned that the First Minister's house style is an attack over an answer—every time. Has he read the comments this morning from Les Gray, the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation? The First Minister will recall that, earlier this year, during the election campaign, he attended the police federation's annual conference. While there, he explicitly said that the SNP was setting money aside to pay for the extra 1,000 police officers—and that that was new money and extra officers and not a play on words. I ask the First Minister again whether he intends to keep that promise to recruit an extra 1,000 police officers—yes or no.

A glance at the Business Bulletin will tell Wendy Alexander exactly what the Scottish National Party will do. We

"will deliver an additional 1,000 police officers in our communities through increased recruitment, improved retention and redeployment."

As soon as we recruit the first police officer, that will be one more than the Labour Party promised in the election campaign.

The First Minister appears to be refusing to honour the promise of 1,000 extra police officers. There is another promise that he seems to be backing away from. In September, he told the chamber that he would deliver class sizes of 18 in primaries 1, 2 and 3 by 2011. This afternoon, his cabinet secretary, John Swinney, is meeting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I presume that he will ask councils to deliver on that promise.

Will the First Minister assure us that he will at least honour the pledge of reducing class sizes to 18 by 2011 and meet the full costs of doing so? Yes or no.

The outcome agreements that we are seeking with local government are precisely designed to allow the Government to meet the commitments in our manifesto. That is exactly what we are doing.

Let me point out as gently as I possibly can to Wendy Alexander that, as opposed to police numbers, where the announcements in our budget on 14 November will contrast our recruitment against the Labour Party's non-recruitment, we do not have to wait for the budget for teachers: 250 more teachers have been recruited in Scotland than would have been if the Labour and Liberal parties had remained in office.

I think that we have to take that as a no, or at least as just another broken promise. Police numbers, student debt, school buildings, first-time buyers: all broken promises. Let me offer the First Minister one final chance to answer the question. Does his class-size pledge, made in this chamber in September to the pupils and parents of Scotland, still hold, and will John Swinney provide councils with the full funding required? Yes or no.

Let me say in conclusion that the First Minister is boasting to his conference delegates this weekend about a can-do attitude in Scotland because the SNP is in government. Of course, the real truth is that what the SNP can do is make promises; what it cannot do is keep them.

Wendy Alexander's questions are longer than my answers. [Interruption.]

Order.

It is traditional when someone asks for a yes or no answer to stop at that point, not to go on to a longer ramble.

That is exactly what John Swinney will do when he meets COSLA to discuss the outcome agreements. When I speak to delegates at the first SNP conference in history to celebrate an SNP Government in office, I will talk about 160 days of achievement: allowing councils to employ additional teachers already in Scotland; abolishing the Labour-Liberal student fees in the graduate endowment; removing tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges; reversing Labour's plans to close accident and emergency units at Monklands and Ayr hospitals; and, finally, already investing in the prison estate so that we do not leave ourselves vulnerable to judgments such as Somerville, which will cost the Scottish public dear in the next few years.

I point out to members that they always listen to questions reasonably courteously; I ask them to reflect on how they listen to answers.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-212)

I have no immediate plans to do so. I last spoke to the secretary of state on the matter of the comprehensive spending review. I look forward to discussing other subjects with him, including the full implementation of the Gould report in terms of the running of future Scottish elections.

Presiding Officer,

"education, health and policing are top three priorities … hugely important … top of the public's concerns."

Those were the First Minister's words at the Scottish Police Federation conference in April. I should know—I was there and, yes, I agreed. So how do the deeds of Alex Salmond compare with the words of Alex Salmond?

Last week we saw a crisis in the care of the elderly, and then there was the continuing fiasco about the broken police pledge, but what were the First Minister's top priorities? He was planning an emergency statement on his holidays in America. [Interruption.]

Order.

Not content with that, he was busy writing to dictators in Iran and Zimbabwe on issues that have nothing to do with his devolved Government. I remind the First Minister that his political duty to Scotland begins at home.

Will the First Minister finally admit that the cast-iron promise on policing that he made in the SNP manifesto has been broken and that when he pledged 1,000 more officers and described them as new, that was simply not true? Will he admit that when he said at the Scottish Police Federation conference in Peebles that he will

"allocate funds to policing if more funds are needed in addition to the thousand extra officers",

he was just spinning a line?

Will the First Minister come clean and admit that the SNP cannot be trusted and that he has betrayed the public and our police?

What I was doing in America was working to bring jobs and investment to Scotland. I hope that Annabel Goldie will have the grace to acknowledge that if the plans come to fruition. What I did not do in America was meet David Cameron, who was on the west coast meeting the governor of California. I do not know whether he was on holiday, but I do not think that he was working to bring jobs and investment to Scotland.

We will deliver an additional 1,000 police officers in our communities through increased recruitment, improved retention and redeployment. We will set out our plans, as we always intended to do, in our budget on 14 November.

David Cameron was doing something important in America. He was preparing to do something that the First Minister will never have to do—to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

I have to say that the First Minister's response to my question was a distasteful display of wriggling, squirming and writhing. The First Minister does not fool me and he does not fool the police, but I will offer him one last chance of redemption. He promised 1,000 extra police. Scotland currently has 16,261 officers. When will we have 17,261? Is the truth that, under the SNP, the answer is never? Let the First Minister come clean, tell the truth, own up, and apologise.

I exclusively reveal to Annabel Goldie that I have no plans or ambitions to be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

On 14 November, Annabel Goldie will see our plans to have an additional 1,000 police officers in our communities through increased recruitment, improved retention and redeployment. Once upon a time, the Tories were in favour of the three Rs. Annabel Goldie should back our plans for recruitment, retention and redeployment of officers to make the streets of Scotland safer.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-213)

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

During the recess, we were told that the First Minister had written to the states that are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to ask for their help to get him observer status at their meetings. Did a shiver run up his spine as he signed letters to the Governments of some of the most despotic, repressive, undemocratic, villainous regimes in the world: Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe?

The First Minister often talks about an arc of prosperity, but he has just written letters to countries in an arc of repression. The situation in Zimbabwe gets worse and worse. Just as the whole world is moving to cast out President Mugabe as a pariah, Scotland's First Minister invites him back in. Dear Robert, he writes,

"I would hope we would be able to count on your government's support … Please do not hesitate to contact me if you or your government wish to discuss these issues further."

Best wishes, Alex.

Is the First Minister so obsessed with getting a seat in the ante-room at the United Nations? Did he write to Iran, Zimbabwe and Burma? Is there any regime, dictatorship or one-party state to which he will not beg to help the cause of Scottish independence?

Nicol Stephen has just destroyed any pretension of the Liberal party to moderation. The many people throughout Scottish society, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the churches who oppose Trident and its replacement will look at Nicol Stephen's question and wonder whether the Liberal party's commitment remains or whether it has joined the Trident bandwagon. [Interruption.] Finally, yes: I wrote to all countries in the non-proliferation agreement. I remind Nicol Stephen that it is held under the auspices of the United Nations. Is he seriously suggesting that that is not a legitimate organisation to write to?

The First Minister rightly complained in June that the United Kingdom Government had broken the concordat as it had failed to consult him on its discussions with Colonel Gaddafi involving the Lockerbie bomber. Now, without consultation, he has sent a letter to more than 100 Governments. His letter opens up discussions with some of the most vilified and dangerous regimes in the world. It is a clear breach of the agreement. Constantly picking fights with London is bad enough, but this goes way beyond that.

Not just British interests are being put at risk: the European Union is conducting delicate negotiations with many of those countries. The whole world is moving to cast out President Mugabe and to condemn General Than Shwe in Burma, yet Scotland's First Minister asks for their support. I again ask the First Minister whether there is any regime, however wicked, that he will not call on to help the cause of Scottish independence?

The letter was looking for support from Governments and organisations, under the auspices of the United Nations, to help what I think is a majority opinion in Scotland to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I will make two points to Nicol Stephen. First, at the highly successful anti-Trident conference, a wide range of opinion, delegates and representative organisations in Scottish society applauded our initiative in looking to end the evil of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil and in Scottish waters. Secondly, that should not have come as a major surprise to anyone, given that it was one of the key commitments in the Scottish National Party manifesto—a manifesto that I intend to honour.

I have some brief constituency questions.

The First Minister will no doubt be aware that P & O and Stena Line have cancelled their joint project to develop the port of Cairnryan. Given the potentially negative effect that that will have on the project to develop the waterfront at Stranraer—which is a vital project for the economy of the west of Wigtownshire—will the First Minister ask the appropriate cabinet secretary to liaise with Stena as a matter of urgency to see what alternative proposals can be brought forward for the development?

I share the member's concern about that development and the implications it has for the planned developments in Stranraer. I undertake to ask the appropriate minister to contact the companies concerned to see how the best interests of the south-west of Scotland can be protected.

Does the First Minister agree with me and with the local community that, in light of the fatal road accident that occurred two weeks ago at the Blackford junction of the A9, urgent action must be taken to upgrade the dangerous junctions? Will he now instruct his transport minister to bring forward the strategic transport projects review to implement major safety improvements at junctions on the A9?

They are dangerous junctions, and it is a matter of serious concern. The member will be aware that safety improvements are currently taking place on the A9. The cabinet secretary will write to her about her specific concern.

Is the First Minister aware of the anger of my constituents in Plains, who have been betrayed by his Government? Does he agree with the decision of his transport minister, who has overturned the previous Government's commitment to provide an additional station at Plains as part of the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link?

The additional station at Plains was the recommendation of a committee of the Parliament, which responded to the economic and social case that was made by the local community. Is it not a nonsense that my constituents will suffer all the inconvenience that comes with a major construction project but, at the end of it, will be able only to wave at the trains, not to step on board? Will he act today to reconsider the matter? Will he listen to my constituents? Will he—as the previous Parliament and Government did—overturn this ridiculous decision to deny the people of Plains a station?

I remind the member that the previous Administration's commitment was to have a study undertaken, not to go ahead with the project. The study has been completed and—unfortunately for the member—has not demonstrated the economic benefit of the proposal. I am happy to make the study available to the member and to have further discussions with her, but she should remember that the previous commitment was to the study and that the implications and findings of that study must be addressed.

---

Asbestos-related Pleural Plaques (Compensation)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's view is on the ruling by the House of Lords on 17 October 2007 removing the right to compensation for victims of a certain asbestos-related condition. (S3F-215)

The Scottish Government is acutely aware of the concerns that the judgment will have raised among those with pleural plaques and it is urgently examining the position in the light of the judgment to consider what implications it has for people in Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for his sympathetic reply, but I ask him to go a little further today. He may be aware that the scandalous and unjust ruling by the House of Lords regarding pleural plaques has left 214 people whose cases are in court and 420 others whose cases have still to be heard in a judicial no man's land. They are our fellow citizens who spent their working lives in the shipbuilding, construction and fishing industries, yet their right to have their cases heard in respect of compensation for their condition has been removed.

Given the fact that the previous Executive found space in its legislative programme to pass the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) Scotland Act 2007—which, rightly, attracted the unanimous support of Parliament—will the First Minster pledge today to find time in his Government's programme to adopt the bill that has been prepared on behalf of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which was sent to Mr MacAskill on 17 October, so that this wrong can be righted as quickly as possible? Asbestos victims and their families simply want the First Minister to answer, "Yes" today.

The whole chamber will have great sympathy for asbestos victims and their families. We are aware that pleural plaques have been regarded as unactionable for 20 years and that the judgment will be disappointing for, and of great concern to, those with the condition. I am sure that that view is shared by all members. However, it is important to make it clear that the judgment relates only to pleural plaques and does not affect actions regarding other asbestos-related conditions.

There is a factor in our consideration of a response to the judgment of which the member should be aware. As the ruling was made in the context of an English appeal, it is not binding at present in Scotland. We must consider that in evaluating our response and how we might secure the position of those who suffer from asbestos-related conditions.

I will take two supplementary questions, but I ask that they be kept as brief as possible.

Given the First Minister's sympathetic response, I hope that he will not go too far down the alleyway of the House of Lords' jurisdiction across Scotland or England. Does he accept that there is an urgent need not just to get support for legislation, but to introduce legislation on the issue as soon as possible, to prevent the 200 existing claimants Bill Butler mentioned from losing their rights? Can he give any indication of how soon that can be done and how soon a decision will be made? I invite him to meet—or to have the cabinet secretary meet—Clydeside Action on Asbestos, me and other interested MSPs in early course and to have officials attend the briefing that we will have on 7 November in the Parliament.

Of course I will arrange for the minister to take part in such a meeting.

The point that I make about the judgment being on an English appeal is not merely a legal and academic nicety; it means that the judgment does not at present apply in Scotland. However, the member is perfectly correct, and we are examining the issue and making preparations in the expectation that if a case is brought or an appeal heard in Scotland, the courts might well respond as the House of Lords has. That is why we are considering the matter. I will be delighted to have the relevant minister take part in the meeting.

One of the concerns of the people who work on behalf of asbestos victims is that the next step after pleural plaques is to move on to asbestosis sufferers. That is why it is so important to get some resolution now. I highlight the work of the trade unions, particularly Unite, which brought the case in the House of Lords. I understand that Mr MacAskill will meet the STUC and the trade unions next week. Can the First Minister ask him to discuss with them how the Government, the trade union movement, and the campaign organisations will all work together to ensure that we get the right resolution for asbestos victims and the right resolution for Scotland in the context of the cross-party consensus that we have built on this issue?

I am delighted to take the matter forward in a consensual and cross-party way. The meeting about the issue should be specifically about the legal terms of the response that we are considering and about our seeking agreement with Parliament.

As the member notes, it is important to make clear that, at this juncture, the judgment is on an English appeal, and that it refers to pleural plaques only. The member is correct to say that we have to proceed in a way that anticipates that problems might occur with a specific case in the Scottish courts, and that we have to consider that there might be a danger of such a judgment affecting people with other asbestos-related conditions.

---

Comprehensive Spending Review 2007

To ask the First Minister whether the outcome of the 2007 comprehensive spending review places constraints on the Scottish Government's ability to deliver for the people of Scotland. (S3F-222)

Members will be aware that this is the lowest settlement for Scotland since devolution and that the real-terms increase amounts to an average of 1.4 per cent compared with slightly more than 2 per cent for the United Kingdom. Indeed, next year our allocation increases by 0.5 per cent.

We will publish our own budget and spending review next month. Members can be assured that we will deliver on the aspirations of the people of Scotland even in these tough financial times.

Further to the massive let-down that was Scotland's settlement as part of the comprehensive spending review, will the First Minister comment on the reports of earlier in the week that the Scottish block is losing out on an additional £100 million as the result of a deal that the previous Administration made on council tax and housing benefit?

Yes, I will. Confirmation of that decision was in the Secretary of State for Scotland's letter about the comprehensive spending review. Members should be aware of the previous Administration's appalling surrender when a mechanism that had been in place since devolution, and that would have benefited Scotland to the tune of £100 million per year, was surrendered in 2005. I have read some comments in the press that suggest that that is not correct, or that it might be an exaggeration, so I undertake to put the full information about our predecessors' surrender into the Scottish Parliament information centre so that every member of the Parliament can read it. I see that Andy Kerr is nodding; that is another fine mess he got the Parliament into.

The First Minister and his Government have made much of their inability to announce the detail of the funds that they will make available until after the comprehensive spending review, and that inability even extends to vital local services such as those delivered by the community regeneration fund. Is the First Minister aware that his ministers have remained silent when asked whether they will give at least in-principle support to that vital fund? Will he commit his Government today to the continuation of the community regeneration fund?

We have set out our position on the comprehensive spending review and I remind the member that our budget will be published on 14 November.

We are exceptionally sympathetic to many worthy causes and funds in Scotland. I hope that when Labour members ask for support for causes and funds they will remember the figure of 0.5 per cent in real terms, which is the Scottish spending increase for next year that the Labour Government in London considers appropriate.

---

Free Personal Care

To ask the First Minister what action will be taken following the ruling by Lord Macphail on the provision of free personal care. (S3F-225)

There has been widespread misreporting of the case. We will continue to reassure older people and their families that Lord Macphail's ruling reflects the Scottish Government's current guidance and does not impact on their entitlement to free personal and nursing care support. Before the ruling, we had already committed to taking positive action to maintain and strengthen the free personal care policy. Next April, we will uprate payments in line with inflation for the first time for five years; we have commissioned Lord Sutherland to review the funding that is provided to implement the policy; and we are taking forward dialogue with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure the effective implementation of the existing policy and to address fundamental issues such as charges for food preparation and waiting lists.

Given that Lord Macphail expressed his disappointment that he was not afforded assistance by the SNP Government to interpret the legislation in the public interest, will the First Minister give an assurance that if a similar circumstance arises in future his Government will assist and co-operate with the Court of Session?

We did not join the case for—I presume—the same reasons that the previous Administration decided not to become a party to it in February and March.

We intend to discharge our obligation and duty on free personal care by uprating benefits and, in particular, by looking to Lord Sutherland to give us guidance that I hope every member will support so that we ensure that the Parliament lives up to its promise to older people in Scotland to deliver genuine free personal care.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The First Minister may not have listened to this morning's debate on free personal care, but he should do so so that he is not in danger of misleading the chamber. He should be clear that the previous Executive was not asked to go to court or to see the ombudsman. He should withdraw his remark.

I am sure that the member is aware that that is not a point of order.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—