Plenary, 26 Nov 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, November 26, 2009

Official Report 719KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

The next item of business is First Minister's questions; perhaps I should say questions to the First Minister.

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2038)

I have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

In his manifesto, the First Minister promised to maintain teacher numbers at Labour's record level of 53,000. What is he saying now? Is he going to keep that promise?

The Scottish Government is investing in local authorities throughout Scotland to reduce class sizes. As Iain Gray knows, class sizes in Scotland are at a record low. I make no bones about the fact that we have been disappointed by the response of certain local authorities in Scotland—it is only some—in sustaining teacher numbers. It is of considerable interest to people throughout Scotland that Glasgow City Council, for example, is responsible thus far for a quarter of the fall in teacher numbers in Scotland over the past year.

We have become used to the "a big boy did it and ran away" defence on teacher numbers, but the truth is that Alex Salmond made a promise, and the Scottish National Party has cut teacher numbers by 1,000. When the SNP sneaks out the latest figures tomorrow, the situation is expected to be even worse. Yesterday, Fiona Hyslop came up with a cunning plan—to get rid of 500 more teachers. With teacher numbers dropping, why is Alex Salmond planning to get rid of even more teachers?

Yesterday, Fiona Hyslop came up with a plan to give young teachers a chance of a job in Scotland, which Iain Gray supports. I hope that he joins me in calling on local authorities such as Glasgow City Council to put teachers in their schools and to put the future of our young children before their fascination with prestige projects. [Interruption.]

Order.

I have the figures for 12 SNP-led councils in Scotland, 11 of which have reduced their teacher numbers. Perhaps Alex Salmond will ensure that they put teacher numbers ahead of vanity projects.

I want our young teachers to be given opportunities, but I do not want opportunities to be created by taking 500 of the most experienced teachers out of our schools. That will cost £10 million. Will that £10 million come out of the funding for Alex Salmond's vanity projects, such as his £12 million referendum? No, it will come from councils' school building budgets. Brilliant. If teachers are got rid of, schools will not be needed. No wonder councils have "reacted with fury", to use their words. It is a panic measure. Councils and parents know that we need schools and teachers. When will the First Minister realise that it is Fiona Hyslop, not teachers, who should retire early?

Perhaps Iain Gray should listen to the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, Chris Keates, who has described Fiona Hyslop's plan to give young teachers a chance in Scotland as "extremely good news". We know that the number of teacher retirals in Scotland is not running at the level that the past and the current Administrations expected. Many people believe that the fact that people are not retiring from their jobs has something to do with the Labour Party's recession.

I have been considering a few vanity projects that we could cut in Scotland. We could cut the vanity project of our share of expenditure—£9 million every year—on the House of Lords. I see a look of anxiety crossing the face of Lord George Foulkes. I am not saying that that expenditure is all due to him; it is due to a few others as well. Cutting that expenditure would mean 250 new police officers in addition to the record numbers that we have, 290 new teachers or 320 new nurses each and every year. While we are at it, we could get rid of the Scotland Office and save £8 million a year.

I have indeed looked at third-party comment on the proposal to get rid of the most experienced teachers from our schools. A "panic measure", a "desperate attempt", a "shambles" and a "disgrace": outrage has been blasted right, left and centre, and it is no wonder. Let us look at the record. More than 500 primary schools are crumbling, 70 schools are beyond repair, there are 1,000 fewer teachers—[Interruption.]

Order.

There are 1,000 fewer teachers, and probationer teachers are on the dole. Teacher training has been cut, and the new curriculum is in chaos. The broken promises on class sizes, physical education, nursery teachers and school meals have been condemned by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and by headteachers, teachers and parents the length and breadth of this country. Is Alex Salmond the last man in Scotland who thinks that Fiona Hyslop is up to the job?

I recall that many Labour senior spokesmen in Scotland do not seem to regard free school meals as a priority. In fact, if I remember correctly, Councillor Steven Purcell suggested that school meals should be cut—taken out of the mouths of children in Scotland—to pay for the Glasgow airport rail link project.

In Scotland, 100,000 pupils have been taken out of inadequate accommodation by this Government. The Labour Party has changed its position from saying that there is no school building programme to having to admit that the programme far exceeds that of the previous Administration.

With regard to Iain Gray's questions and responses, and the subjects on offer, I find it interesting that on this day of shame for the Labour Party in Scotland, putting party-political advantage before the public health of Scotland featured in Iain Gray's questions. [Interruption.]

Order.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but it really is a case of pot, kettle and black.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2039)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future, although I watched his statement in the House of Commons yesterday.

It is now clear that another of the First Minister's flagship policies—the minimum pricing of alcohol—is going to hit the buffers, because the Labour Party has finally seen the light, or found a backbone; whatever it is necessary for it to do to follow the Conservative lead. [Interruption.]

Order.

As it is now clear that the First Minister will not succeed with his policy of the minimum pricing of alcohol, I ask him to reconsider another area of policy—his determination to provide universal free prescriptions. We know that the Liberal Democrats, once again following my party's lead in opposing the measure, have joined our ranks in opposition to that policy. No doubt Labour will follow shortly.

Does the First Minister agree that at this time of crisis in our public finances, when delivering essential public services is proving hugely challenging, giving people like him and me free prescriptions is morally repugnant and politically irresponsible?

I will deal first with the first part of Annabel Goldie's question, on the minimum pricing of alcohol. Annabel Goldie should not be proud or pleased that the Labour Party is ganging up with the Conservatives on the issue of minimum pricing, because the weight of evidence indicates that the minimum pricing of alcohol would save lives in Scotland.

I note that the Labour Party is ganging up with the Conservatives to oppose minimum pricing just as the Conservatives have stopped ganging up with the Labour Party as far as the Calman commission is concerned—kicking it into the long grass, as the Liberals put it. The Conservatives, of course, are the long grass into which the Calman commission is being kicked.

Annabel Goldie's constant refrain that free prescriptions and having a national health service that is free at the point of need are of no interest to people in Scotland is deeply and profoundly mistaken. She should tell that to people with long-term conditions who have, through the years, suffered enormously from having to buy their prescriptions.

Those of us who believe in a health service in Scotland that is free at the point of need, with issues decided on the basis of need and clinical availability and not on the ability to pay, believe that the free prescription policy is necessary and represents the best principles of the national health service.

Many of the people in the category to which the First Minister referred already get their prescriptions free.

Last week, I raised with the First Minister the deeply disturbing issue of child malnutrition. As I said last week, one of the most important interventions for children who are at risk would be to improve the provision of health visitors. Is not supporting vulnerable children far more important than subsidising free prescriptions for me and the First Minister? I know that the First Minister and I do not agree on universal free prescriptions but, if he loses the vote for that policy in the Parliament, will he commit to using the money that is saved to improve the provision of health visitors throughout Scotland?

As I said to Annabel Goldie last week, I am interested in and concerned about the position and numbers of health visitors in Scotland, and that will be an abiding concern.

However, Annabel Goldie indicates that the issue of free prescriptions is the only thing that divides us in our beliefs about the national health service. I remind her of two things. First, there has been fundamental doubt over the years, not about the Tories' commitment to free prescriptions at the point of need, but about their commitment to free health care at the point of need. That is exactly why the Conservatives had to say that the health service was safe in their hands, because people throughout the country believed it to be unsafe in their hands. We have just passed last year's anniversary year of the national health service, the original concept of which was of a service for all that was free at the point of need. The free prescription policy lives up to that principle and will deliver it in practice.

Secondly, Annabel Goldie says blithely that many people with long-term conditions have access to free prescriptions, but many do not—that is exactly the problem. People who do not have access to free prescriptions will be extremely interested and concerned that the Tory party is reverting to type as far as our national health service is concerned.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2040)

Issues of relevance and concern to the people of Scotland.

The First Minister has made it clear that the Scottish budget faces a tough settlement and that every penny counts. Are any Scottish Government quangos or agencies sitting on reserves of unused cash?

There are a great number fewer quangos and agencies in Scotland thanks to the Government's action. Of course, it might be that we started from a very high level of quangos and agencies, as that was the legacy of the Liberal-Labour Administration in Scotland. Thankfully, the Government has cut it.

That was not an answer to the question that I asked. A report from the Auditor General for Scotland, which cannot come as a surprise to Mr Salmond, confirms that the Registers of Scotland quango has accumulated reserves of £122 million. Section 4 of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 says that the money can be paid to the consolidated fund if ministers and the Treasury agree. There are no other positive plans to use the reserves. Scotland is in recession now and business needs help to get through it. Small businesses cannot get the funds that they need from their banks, so why cannot the money be used to help thousands of them? Otherwise, we will have £122 million of good money in the wrong place in tough times. Will the First Minister ask for that transfer to happen?

Oh yes, I will certainly ask for the transfer to happen, and I will inform Tavish Scott why it has not happened to date. The Treasury's position is that, if we get transfers into the consolidated fund, the amount comes off the departmental expenditure limit. Tavish Scott should know that, because previously we have discussed the money under the fossil fuel levy, to which exactly the same principle applies. That amounts to £165 million. I therefore hold out hope that Tavish Scott will unite with me, in a new consensus in politics, and see the eminent common sense of having control of our finances, so that we do not have to go cap in hand to the Treasury to get back our own money.

I am sure that the First Minister will share my concern about the 8 per cent increase in the incidence of domestic abuse reported by the police in the past year. Over many years, women's organisations have demanded that men who abuse their partners and terrorise their families should face the full force of the law. Does the First Minister think that it is acceptable that only about 10 per cent of men who are found guilty of domestic abuse go to jail? Will he reflect on his plans to scrap six-month sentences, given the concerns of many who are involved in supporting victims of domestic abuse that his actions will result in fewer of those men being jailed and women and children being put at greater risk?

I am concerned about the issue. Indeed, I had discussions on exactly that point in Airdrie yesterday. On Johann Lamont's position on short jail sentences, the proposition is clear: people who commit serious offences should not receive short jail sentences; they should be given long jail sentences. We must face the inevitable conclusion, as some in her party do, and as the evidence shows, that short jail sentences do not work to change offending behaviour. Let us treat domestic violence as a serious issue in the criminal law, and let us not pretend that a short jail sentence is adequate to reflect the seriousness of the issue or will solve the problems in this or any other respect.

Is the First Minister aware that two of my constituents, Florence Mhango and her 10-year-old daughter Precious, from Cranhill in Glasgow are currently being detained at Yarl's Wood detention centre? In the past hour, I have received news that they will shortly be joined by a family of five Glasgow children who were taken to Dungavel yesterday after school—five Muslim children, innocent of any crime, but spending Eid in prison.

What progress has the Scottish Government made with the alternatives to detention pilots? Will the Scottish Government continue to support the consensus throughout Scotland that the detention of such children is morally wrong?

I am aware of the circumstances in the first of the cases that Anne McLaughlin mentions. We have made continual representations to the United Kingdom Government on the detention of children. Michael Russell, the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution, wrote to Phil Woolas on Friday last week, specifically on the first case that Anne McLaughlin mentioned.

As Anne McLaughlin indicated, the Scottish Government remains fundamentally opposed to dawn raids and to the detention of children in Dungavel. We have made it clear that asylum seekers and refugees must be treated fairly and humanely, and that while they are in Scotland they must be supported.

The Scottish Government has been actively exploring alternatives to detention, which is why we are supporting a three-year pilot in Glasgow that is aimed at reducing the number of children who are held in Dungavel and encouraging and assisting families' voluntary return.

I am not aware of the second case that Anne McLaughlin mentioned, but we will investigate it today and I shall write to her.

---

Air-gun Incidents

To ask the First Minister what efforts the Scottish Government is making to reduce the number of air-gun incidents. (S3F-2054)

The Scottish Government is committed to tackling air-gun crime, which continues to be responsible for far too many offences in Scotland. We welcome the United Kingdom Government's recognition that legislative responsibility in that area should be devolved to this Parliament—something that we have been demanding for years. In fact, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has written to the Home Secretary no less than seven times and has met the Home Secretary twice since July 2007 in an attempt to secure agreement from the UK Government to devolve legislative responsibility for air weapons.

As Angela Constance knows, a draft order was lodged on 25 June that would have the effect of devolving responsibility for air weapons. We want the UK Government to agree to take action on that as soon as possible.

The First Minister will be well aware of the white paper that was published yesterday by the UK Government in which it refuses to introduce legislation to transfer life-saving powers on air-guns prior to the next general election, and of the response of the Conservatives, who have indicated that, if elected, they will delay legislation. Will the First Minister therefore set out what action he is taking to introduce legislation immediately? Will the Scottish Government consult on how control over air-guns could be applied in Scotland?

I indicate to Angela Constance that I wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday to seek to secure agreement for the early devolution of responsibility for air weapons and several of the other Calman commission proposals. In fact, I have the orders right here. I indicated to the Prime Minister that there is a meeting of the Privy Council in February and another in March. If the political will exists and there is consensus throughout Parliament, not just on air-guns but on drink-driving limits and speed limits in Scotland, those measures could be implemented before the general election. If that were to happen, any suggestion of Conservative party backsliding or kicking into the long grass would be obviated by the action of the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. I note with great satisfaction that Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal spokesman for constitutional affairs, has indicated his agreement that the recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible.

I say to Angela Constance, on the important subject of air weapons and indeed the other matters, why do we not just get on with the job and stop delaying things further?

In terms of getting on with the job, the First Minister will know that people who carry or use an air-gun, particularly in an urban area, already do so at their peril, because of the existing laws against possession of offensive weapons, reckless actions that endanger life, and breach of the peace, among other offences. What action is his Government taking to ensure that existing laws are known about and rigorously enforced? Does he agree that, whatever the issues in countryside areas, there can be little justification for the use of air-guns in our cities?

Indeed, and there has been significant action through the violence reduction unit and other initiatives, including summits held by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the issue of air-guns. The summits indicated that legislative competence is required to do the job properly and protect the Scottish public from the menace of air-guns. That was the conclusion of the groups that represent victims throughout Scottish society, and I thought that it was also the united conclusion of the Parliament. It is certainly the conclusion of Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal spokesman at Westminster.

Given the unanimity in the Parliament, among victims' groups, in the police service and elsewhere, why do we not all agree to get on with getting the legislative competence so that we can do the job properly and protect Scottish society?

Does the First Minister recall the terrible incident of the death of Andrew Morton, whose family were my constituents? I genuinely ask the First Minister to agree that this is not the day to play politics with the issue, but instead—[Interruption.] Genuinely, First Minister, this was a terrible incident, and the family have suffered terribly. Today, I ask the First Minister to join me in congratulating and paying tribute to the Morton family, because it is their pressure that has made all the political parties in Scotland find a way forward.

I gladly pay tribute to the Morton family and the other families who have campaigned on the issue. Surely the thing that we should do is unite as a Parliament to get the legislative power within our competence as quickly as possible to respond to the crying needs of the Morton family and other families in Scotland.

The First Minister must appreciate that, irrespective of the proposed transfer of powers, the law is in place to enable us to deal with offences of this type. Does he not recognise that his justice secretary's proposal to create a presumption against sentences of less than six months will allow many of those who commit offences under the existing legislation to escape what should be a custodial sentence for a very serious matter?

Bill Aitken, above all, should believe that people who commit serious offences should not be given short jail sentences. I thought that we had a consensus on the matter. The Calman commission said that air-gun legislation required to be devolved so that we could have a comprehensive legal framework to make society safer in Scotland. If the present legal framework was appropriate, no doubt Calman and the rest of us would not have called for competence to be devolved.

I do not think that the necessary action that we are continuing to take to protect Scottish society should preclude us from getting the legislative competence to do the job properly. Until now, I thought that the Conservatives were backsliding only on Calman's financial proposals. Their justice spokesman has now opened up the possibility that they are backsliding on the range of Calman's proposals.

---

Flooding

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take to support those homes and businesses affected by flooding over the last two weeks. (S3F-2053)

I thank the member for raising an issue that is, of course, at the forefront of our minds while Scotland is affected by severe weather for the third time in as many months. The recent flooding had a particularly bad impact on Whitesands in her constituency, as well as serious impacts across much of southern and central Scotland. The Minister for Environment is currently visiting Whitesands to see for herself the impact of the flooding.

The Scottish Government has provided record levels of funding for flood prevention schemes since 2007. The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009—which, if I remember correctly, the Parliament passed unanimously—comes into force today and will make a significant contribution, for example by streamlining decision making for flood prevention schemes and by placing new duties on local authorities to reduce overall flooding risk.

We have been in touch with Dumfries and Galloway Council about assistance under the Bellwin scheme, and the council has indicated that it will let us know by the end of the week whether it will be making an application.

I take this opportunity to update Parliament on the general situation. As of this morning, 13 flood watches and eight flood warnings are in force. The forecast is improving as we move towards the weekend, but we shall continue to monitor the situation.

I am glad to hear that the Scottish Government continues to spend the funding that was allocated by the previous Executive for flood prevention. I am aware that the Minister for Environment is in my constituency: I was advised of that by the leader of the Labour group on Dumfries and Galloway Council—I am a little surprised not to have received the normal courtesy of notification of a ministerial visit to my constituency.

The United Kingdom Government and the Northwest Regional Development Agency are making £2 million available to help communities in Cumbria that were affected by last week's flooding. The Department for Transport will provide emergency funding to help to repair bridges and roads. Apart from reannouncing the passage of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, what is the Scottish Government actually going to do to help those of my constituents who are suffering the effects of flooding today? The UK Government has announced funding; the Scottish Government has reannounced the passing of an act—which, incidentally, was significantly improved through Labour Party amendments.

When Elaine Murray's constituency—like others, including mine—is affected by something such as flooding, it is best to rise above party politicking, in my view.

As I should have said, the Scottish Government, as well as operating widely in the south-west of Scotland, is also providing mutual aid to Cumbria County Council in the form of bridge inspection and engineers for the massive task that it faces. I assure Elaine Murray that Amey has sufficient resources to fulfil all obligations regarding bridges in the south-west of Scotland.

The current funding for flood prevention schemes is now running at about £42 million per annum, which is about eight times what it was between 1999 and 2007.

Leave the party politics out of it.

Order. Be quiet please, Lord Foulkes.

I am answering Elaine Murray's point. I also draw her attention to what I said about the Bellwin scheme and the discussions that are taking place with Dumfries and Galloway Council. Following a question from Mike Rumbles two weeks ago, I looked closely at the provisions of the Bellwin scheme. Under the latest revision, the scheme provides 100 per cent assistance for exceptional expenditure by local authorities above a level of 0.2 per cent of their funding base. In Scotland, local authorities are now allowed to accumulate incidents over the year, as opposed to dealing only with one-off incidents. Both those changes are important. If more changes are necessary to help local authorities, we will see if we can make them. I note that the changes that were made for Scotland in the most recent review of the scheme have been introduced in England only now, in response to the serious concerns about the extent of the flooding in Cumbria.

I hope that, as was the case with the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill, all parties and all members rise to the challenge that weather conditions pose. Let us accept that all members, whether constituency members, the First Minister or anybody else, have an equal concern to do everything that they can to help people in their extremity.

---

European Union Agriculture and Fisheries Council

To ask the First Minister what the implications are for the Scottish fishing fleet of the agreement reached by the EU agriculture and fisheries council on 21 November 2009. (S3F-2050)

Some particularly damaging measures were thrown out in favour of rules that are rather better for the Scottish fishing fleet. However, we are extremely concerned about one particular aspect of the council's decisions last week: the measures imposing severe restrictions on white-fish vessels operating on the west coast. Those restrictions were adopted as an emergency measure last year, but they are to be extended for another 18 months.

The fisheries secretary, Richard Lochhead, worked with the industry on the basis that the measures would expire next month. The extension of what were supposed to be emergency measures is bitterly disappointing and is a significant breach of faith by the European Commission.

The decision was reached very late last Friday night, which is an indication of some of the other faults of the common fisheries policy. It will have a significant impact on the livelihoods of a number of fishermen, which, again, underscores why the common fisheries policy is totally unfit for purpose.

The decision to extend those draconian and unworkable catch composition rules on the west coast not just for another year but for 18 months is potentially disastrous for many in the Scottish fleet. I acknowledge the fisheries secretary's efforts—and those of the United Kingdom minister—to resist the readoption of the measures last week, but he signed up to them last December.

In light of the failure to prevent their extension, will the First Minister outline what legal avenues are being pursued, even at this stage, to bring forward alternative proposals for the west coast fishery? Will he clarify what assistance can be made available to the fishermen who are most directly affected, given the fisheries secretary's statement to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee earlier this month that

"we can use European fisheries fund money for tie-up schemes"?—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 11 November 2009; c 2108.]

The fisheries secretary is meeting the fishing industry to discuss measures to alleviate the situation. I am not minimising the impact of the continuation of the emergency measures, which will badly affect about 15 white-fish vessels, three of which are in Orkney. I know about the effect, because some of the 15 vessels are based in my constituency. However, the other, more successful, part of the discussions last Friday will benefit 378 prawn fishing vessels. Nonetheless, the impact on the 15 white-fish vessels of the continuation of the emergency measures will be extremely severe.

The fisheries secretary is meeting the fishing organisations. The final council meeting is on 14 and 15 December. It is right to point out that, for the first time in living memory, Scottish ministers, UK ministers and the Irish Government united to vote against the Commission's proposals. Nonetheless, Liam McArthur should understand and indicate that this period of confusion and unfairness—even if it is applied to a limited number of boats, which is totally unjustifiable—exemplifies exactly what is wrong with the common fisheries policy, which is why so many of us have been struggling for so long to get rid of the underlying policy that visits so much injustice on the Scottish fishing industry.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—