Members will wish to join me in welcoming Eileen Bell, who is the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [Applause.]
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2491)
I, too, welcome the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and wish her and her colleagues in all the parties in the Assembly well in attempting, over the winter and in difficult circumstances, to implement the agreement reached two weeks ago at St Andrews. [Applause.]
I echo all of the First Minister's opening remarks.
At long last, we get some honesty from the SNP. I am very pleased to endorse the statements that were made yesterday by our own Minister for Environment and Rural Development and, in London, by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I want to be very clear with the chamber and the people of Scotland that we endorse the principle of voluntary agreement in relation to the disposal of nuclear waste. As it is likely that there will be no volunteers in Scotland to deal with such waste but that there might indeed be volunteers in local authorities in England, if the SNP is saying that we should impose it on the people of Scotland instead, it is wrong and is, in fact, being very irresponsible.
My position is clear; the problem is with the First Minister's position. He seems to be suggesting that Scotland can abdicate responsibility for our share of the waste that his Government and previous Tory Governments have generated. I do not think so.
The Parliament has powers over nuclear waste, and we are exercising them with great care and responsibility. We have agreed with the UK Government that, under the arrangements recommended by the independent scientists and experts and implemented by both Governments, nuclear waste will not be disposed of in areas where it is not wanted.
Yesterday, the UK minister did not, and would not, rule out Scotland as the site for all the UK's nuclear waste. That is the reality. The difficulty of dealing with nuclear waste is just one of the reasons why an SNP Government will not sanction new nuclear power stations. The First Minister has said repeatedly that he will make no decision on new nuclear power stations until the issue of waste has been resolved, but now that he has accepted the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's so-called solution and now that he thinks the issue is resolved, I assume that he can finally give us an answer to this question: is he for or against new nuclear power stations?
We know that the SNP's policy on new nuclear power stations is irresponsible, just as its policy on nuclear waste is irresponsible. Many issues have still to be resolved on nuclear waste, but at least some of the issues are now clear. The Executive parties support deep disposal; the SNP supports leaving waste on the surface. The Executive parties support a voluntary arrangement inside the UK for a community to volunteer to accept the nuclear waste; the SNP wants to impose it on Scotland. The SNP's policy is irresponsible and threatens the future of Scottish communities; the Executive parties are tackling the issue responsibly and now have a solution for the future.
The SNP's position is backed by the Liberals, the Greens, Friends of the Earth Scotland and Greenpeace to name just a few. It is a responsible position. Is it not the case that the First Minister's position is now, frankly, just embarrassing? He will not say whether he is for or against new nuclear power stations, and because he does not have any good arguments against independence he resorts to desperate scaremongering and, in this case, crude anti-English posturing. Could that be why more and more people in Scotland think that it is time for a new First Minister—one who is up to the job?
There is some irony in the fact that the leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, whose sums do not add up, will speak tonight to auditors in Scotland. If Ms Sturgeon wants to talk about independence, we can talk about that all day long. If she wants to talk about what we would lose as a country by losing the union dividend, I am happy to do so. Billions of pounds of public expenditure would be lost to Scotland. The trade and economic integration that exist between Scottish businesses and businesses south of the border would be lost as a result of losing the union dividend. Family ties would also be affected by losing the union dividend. SNP members, no matter how much they shout, cannot deny that the union dividend would be lost to Scotland. SNP members had better start debating that issue. If they do not want to debate it, we certainly do.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2492)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues that are important to Scotland.
I would have thought that, at its next meeting, the Scottish Cabinet might want to discuss hospital cuts, the lack of parenting orders, or perhaps Margaret Curran's trip to New Zealand to see how minority government works. Be that as it may, I turn to the First Minister's lecture in Haddington earlier this week. Does he accept that this Parliament is young, that some mistakes have been made and that there is room for improvement, but that the idea of scrapping devolution after only seven and a half years to go down the road that is advocated by Mr Salmond is fraught with uncertainty and dangerous for the future of Scotland?
The biggest danger of separatism would clearly be to lose that union dividend. Across the United Kingdom, we benefit from the pooling of resources and from the additional public expenditure that is provided to Scotland. We would lose the integration of family and business ties that makes us stronger together, and we would be weaker apart. We would lose our stable economy—one of the great benefits of the union dividend—the common inflation target, common interest rates, common currency and the integrated single market. In all those areas and many others, there is a benefit to Scotland from being part of the United Kingdom. However, there is also a benefit to Scotland from the Scottish Parliament making decisions on the matters that are devolved to it. By using both of those benefits, we have the best of both worlds.
Does the First Minister accept that the Parliament would have benefited from an official Opposition that actually offered opposition, such as my party—[Interruption.]
Order. We have to hear the question.
Surely an official Opposition should do that instead of continually sniping about affairs that are not in the gift of the Parliament.
I am trying to work out who Miss Goldie might be referring to. I agree absolutely with Annabel Goldie. The policies of the SNP would be an economic and social disaster for Scotland. The worst thing that could happen in the Scottish Parliament would be for the SNP to have any power or influence.
It is clear that the first seven and a half years of devolution have not met the expectations of the public. That is largely because the Executive has failed to deliver what the public want. The solution is neither to abolish the Scottish Parliament nor to isolate ourselves by leaving the United Kingdom. Does the First Minister agree that Scotland's problems of skills shortages, shocking drugs abuse, hospital cuts and high taxes are caused not by the institution of the Parliament but by his Executive? Does he also agree that it is time for a new form of devolved Government, one that will make the Scottish Parliament work much better to deliver on the real priorities of ordinary people in Scotland?
As I said before, I agree with Annabel Goldie that the SNP policy of creating a separate Scotland would be a disaster for Scotland, economically and socially. At the same time, I remind her that, as a result of the policies of this devolved Government, we have not only improved attainment in our schools and skills in our country but have gained recognition for doing so outwith Scotland. Not only do we have the lowest waiting times on record, but we have achieved a reduction in drug deaths.
I will take one constituency supplementary.
In 2002, the Scottish Executive agreed that the Ballinluig junction on the A9 in my constituency should be upgraded to a grade-separated junction. It also said that the upgrade should be done by 2005; despite that, work has not even commenced on site. Yesterday, there was another fatality at the junction. Will the First Minister join me in expressing our condolences to the family of the gentleman who lost his life? What action will he take to tackle the lengthy delays that his Executive has caused by failing to tackle the problem on time?
First, I am sure that all members join me in sending condolences to the family of the gentleman who died. The family's situation should be our primary concern today.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2497)
I have no immediate plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The First Minister will have read Professor Arthur Midwinter's report on the gross underfunding of children's social work services. Professor Midwinter concludes:
I do not agree with Professor Midwinter's report, for a number of reasons. For example, the report did not include the provision of: £65 million in the changing children's services fund; £60 million in sure start funding; £33 million in grant-aided expenditure for the children's services development fund; £12 million for fostering; £6 million for looked-after children's education; and the provision of £5 million in GAE for young people leaving care. If the report included all those figures, not only would the gap that it identified be filled but the amount of resource would be even higher than the amount that Professor Midwinter identified as being required. I am sure that Professor Midwinter will consider those figures and ensure that an accurate report is prepared, so that committees of the Parliament can consider the facts.
Those figures do not refer to core funding. The First Minister's reply does not disguise the fact that there is a gap of nearly 60 per cent in core funding. The number of children in need of care and protection has increased, so costs of community and residential care have increased. Professor Midwinter says in paragraph 23 of his report:
I will spell it out again, in summary. Professor Midwinter claimed that there is a £160 million gap, but the amounts of money that I listed total £181 million. Therefore, even if we accept the figure that Professor Midwinter says is required, we are already providing at least £20 million more across Scotland. I hope that that assures members that we are committed to funding children's services properly.
Prisoners (Home Leave)
To ask the First Minister what guarantees can be given that public safety will not be compromised by the proposed home leave for inmates of open prisons at Christmas. (S2F-2500)
All prisoners in open prisons must have been assessed as presenting a low risk to the public before being transferred there. Almost all will have some entitlement to home leave throughout the year as part of their rehabilitation programme. However, no one will be allowed home leave without a rigorous safety assessment.
I thank the First Minister for his reassurance. Does he agree that all political parties should be consistent in supporting that policy, instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to misleading press reports?
I agree absolutely. There are members who claim to support systems for rehabilitation but who are quick to criticise them as soon as there is an opportunity to get themselves in the headlines. I would hope that all members would desist from such practices.
I am sure that the First Minister agrees that one of the most important elements of rehabilitation that the prison service can deliver relates to drug abuse, which takes the majority of prisoners into prison.
Is this a question about home leave, Mr Stevenson?
In that context, in relation to open prisons, does the First Minister support my view that prisoners who are being released for home leave should be tested for drug abuse before they leave and after they return, to ensure continuity of rehabilitation from drug abuse?
If we were to implement the Scottish National Party's policy on prisons, that would be difficult to achieve. The SNP published its policy proposals, entitled "Our policies for a safer Scotland", in which it says clearly that it would introduce new sentencing options, including weekend prisons. For Mr MacAskill, who is Mr Stevenson's boss, to say last week that society has deemed that those people should be punished but that they are not being punished over the festive period because a limited number of prisoners are being allowed home, when, in fact, the SNP wants many more prisoners to be allowed home every single week of the year, is sheer hypocrisy. The Scottish National Party's policies would have more credibility if it was consistent and did not jump from having one policy statement in its policy document to grabbing headlines on another occasion.
Does the First Minister agree that the home leave system is an important part of rehabilitation services, but that there are flaws with regard to services that begin in prison—open prisons in particular—but do not carry on in the community? Will he develop the proposal to establish in the community setting the equivalent of link centres in prisons, which are designed to co-ordinate and ensure that rehabilitation services are properly administered, given that there is currently a gap in such services in the community?
I understand that that matter is being considered by justice services and I am sure that the Minister for Justice would be happy to provide details as discussions progress and reach conclusions.
Farepak
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will ensure that an assessment is made of the social and economic impact of the collapse of the hamper firm, Farepak, particularly on those in our communities who will be worst hit, and what measures can be taken by the Executive to mitigate their loss. (S2F-2494)
Obviously, I express my sympathy for all those who have suffered loss and disappointment as a result of Farepak going into administration. I understand that United Kingdom ministers have launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding that, and have met the British Retail Consortium and Farepak's administrators to see what can be done for those who have lost money. I have therefore asked the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Allan Wilson, to contact the Department of Trade and Industry to get an assessment of the extent of the problem in Scotland and, having done that, to report to Parliament in due course.
I think that the First Minister will agree that the misery that thousands will experience in the run-up to Christmas is an absolute disgrace. I welcome, as I am sure everyone else does, the DTI investigation, because if there has been wrongdoing it must be uncovered. I look forward to the results of the conversations that the First Minister will have in respect of the impact.
All the suggestions that Roseanna Cunningham made towards the end of her question were very sensible indeed. We will of course consider them all and see what can be done to encourage local authorities and companies to provide every assistance and intervene as quickly as possible to ensure that those who are affected do not find that their circumstances deteriorate. This is a shocking and disturbing situation, which will mean that many people in Scotland will find themselves in great difficulty in the run-up to Christmas through no fault of their own. We can all condemn those responsible, but it is important that we take practical measures to assist those who have been affected. We will certainly do all we can to help. If members identify issues that arise in their constituencies, I am sure that ministers will be able to take them up.
Does the First Minister agree that clients of companies such as Farepak are, in effect, taking part in a money-saving scheme throughout the year? Does he agree that there is a strong case to be made for such companies to come under the same regulatory regime as banks and building societies?
I have not studied that point in great detail and would not want to give a specific answer today that would perhaps not work out in terms of legal detail. However, the member's point sounds like a fair one. I am sure that ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry will reflect on it as they investigate the circumstances of the case.
Winter Weather (Emergencies)
To ask the First Minister what measures are in place, or are being prepared, to deal with emergencies arising from winter weather conditions, including landslides, icy and impassable roads and flooding. (S2F-2507)
All the agencies that are involved in emergency planning, including the Met Office, have been working hard to learn lessons from previous incidents, including the storms in the Western Isles in 2005. A wide range of measures is now in place to deal with winter weather emergencies, including plans for wider circulation of severe weather warnings; contracts for trunk road maintenance that will minimise disruption and delay; and a vigilant approach by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to monitoring potential flooding areas.
In the light of the serious incidents of torrential flooding and landslides this week in the Black Isle and Aberdeenshire, as well as immediate threats of flooding elsewhere in Scotland, can the First Minister assure the chamber that he will not be lulled into a false sense of security by a relatively mild autumn? Will he strengthen his forward planning to safeguard life and give maximum assistance to the emergency services?
Of course. As we have said on other occasions, one of the great benefits of devolution is the ability that it creates to bring people together in Scotland and ensure a better co-ordination of public services and those services that are not delivered immediately by the public sector.
Given that the Liberal-Labour Government is determined to press on with the transfer of housing stock from local authorities to housing associations, and following the law of unintended consequences, what consideration has the Government given to extending the Belwin scheme to those housing associations?
The Belwin scheme exists for local authorities, who are the emergency planning co-ordinators in their areas and have a responsibility for all parts of the geographical area, regardless of whether housing is owned or rented from the council or a housing association. Local authorities would not draw a line on the road and say, "On this side of the road, the flood exists and, on the other side of the road, the flood does not exist." It is important to reiterate that the local authorities have a comprehensive responsibility and that, therefore, the system will be maintained.
Will the First Minister consider enhancing the financial resources that the Executive makes available to local authorities when they submit flood prevention schemes?
I do not have the figures before me, but I know that there has been a sizable increase in the national budget for flooding schemes in recent years. If there are delays in the implementation of new flooding schemes, they are normally the result of local disagreements on the nature of those schemes. However, there is certainly no lack of funds available at national level to ensure that schemes can go ahead. I hope that, in those areas that have been affected in the recent past, those who are responsible will bring forward schemes quickly in order for us to be able to programme them and provide the necessary finance.
Does the First Minister agree that one of the major aspects of severe winter weather is a huge rise in the demand for electricity? Given the tragic events at Hunterston this week, when we saw aging nuclear stock having to be taken out of service, what facilities will the First Minister provide to ensure that there will be no shortage of electricity supply this winter?
I wondered where that question was leading, but it did not quite go off in the predictable direction. There was no mention of Europe, for example—although we could, of course, look for a European solution if Mr Gallie would like. I am sure that we would be happy to have a Europe-wide energy policy if he were to advocate such a step.
As we started late, we can have one final supplementary.
Some reports have indicated that we can expect a mild winter. Given today's reports from West Lothian where council officials are concerned that their resources are being stretched to the maximum in trying to cope with the influx of people from eastern Europe, and given West Lothian Council's concern about the diminution of service to West Lothian locals, might it not be feasible for the council to examine its budget for coping with bad winter weather? Will the First Minister and Tom McCabe meet the leaders of the City of Edinburgh Council and West Lothian Council to discuss the shortfall in their funds that could well arise from having to meet both the contingencies of a very bad winter and the influx of people into their areas?
I might admire Margo MacDonald's ingenuity in getting all that into one question on flooding, but I disagree absolutely with her premise. First, Tom McCabe meets council leaders on a regular basis, and he will of course continue to do so. Secondly, those Polish workers who are currently living in Scotland are working hard, creating wealth in our economy and contributing far more than they take from our society. As a result, they are very welcome here.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time