Plenary, 27 Mar 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, March 27, 2008

Official Report 712KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-647)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland because, to coin a phrase, change is what we do.

I realise that the First Minister had another bad day yesterday and I do not mean being booed off the park at Hampden last night. While he was trying to gerrymander his way to independence, I received a letter from Kevin McCahery about the closure of all disability day centres in Aberdeen. What does the First Minister have to say to Kevin's comment that

"if you are elderly/blind/physically disabled in Aberdeen you are out of luck"?

There is great concern, not just in the north-east of Scotland but elsewhere, about the difficult financial position of Aberdeen Council. There will be great interest in the Accounts Commission's consideration of that position. We hope that the local authority will take every step possible to administer its finances in an appropriate way and discharge its public obligation to the people of Aberdeen.

I will leave it to Kevin McCahery and the disabled people of Aberdeen to decide whether that is an appropriate answer.

Of course, Aberdeen is not an isolated case. Let us try Renfrewshire. This week, Renfrewshire teachers condemned a £4.5 million cut to the education budget that threatens 55 teaching jobs and gave chapter and verse on what the cuts mean. What does the First Minister have to say to the parents, pupils and teachers of Renfrewshire?

Let us talk about the £7 million increase in the Renfrewshire education budget, which has been widely welcomed across that local authority area.

I have been looking through the records of the local MSP in Renfrewshire and I cannot find a single representation about the closure of Remploy last week, the factory that discharges to disabled people valuable jobs in that community.

Perhaps if Wendy Alexander would put aside the politics just for a second, she could explain that people should be concerned about the plight of disabled people not just in Aberdeen and Renfrewshire, but right across Scotland.

The big boy who did it and ran away. Time and again this winter, the First Minister and his colleagues have accused me—and anyone else in this chamber who raised the prospect of cuts—of scaremongering. He was wrong and we were right because real cuts are affecting real people and they are starting to bite all over the country.

Bonuses for disabled workers in West Lothian are going. Crèches in Edinburgh have closed. Help for the elderly in Fife has been cut. The buck stops with the First Minister. Is he ready yet to admit that such cuts are the direct result of his decision to freeze one tax, cut another and give local government a smaller share of the Scottish budget cake?

I do not think that the council tax is Wendy Alexander's strongest suit. The council tax was favoured by the Labour Party and increased by 60 per cent from 1997 to 2007. As the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities pointed out, the freeze in council tax this year has been fully funded by the increase in central Government grant to local authorities.

For the first time in a generation, the percentage of public finance that goes to local authorities is increasing year by year throughout the current financial review. We started at 33.394 per cent this year under the Labour budget, but by 2010-11 the proportion will have increased to 33.624 per cent. Facts are chiels that winna ding. Will Wendy Alexander accept that for the first time in a generation central Government funding to local authorities throughout Scotland is increasing, as opposed to decreasing as it did every year under the Labour Party?

Less of the national cake is going to local Government than was the case under Labour. We have heard a series of single transferable excuses.

Next week, when the catalogue of cuts starts to bite, the First Minister will jet off to America, which is convenient. It is clear that he wants to leave his troubles behind him. His manifesto was a con; his concordat is unravelling; his cuts are being condemned; and there have been precious few answers for Kevin McCahery and thousands of people like him. Will there be answers from the First Minister when he comes back from the United States?

In addition to the Labour Party's languishing in the Scottish opinion polls, for the first time the Scottish National Party is more trusted than the Labour Party on education, health and public services. If Wendy Alexander ever gets into a position in which SNP councillors are saying, "God bless the Labour Party," I will be extremely surprised.

As far as the comment on the single transferable vote is concerned, will Wendy Alexander perhaps explain some time why she wants to deny the Scottish people the right to decide their future in a national referendum? I have a reasonably long memory on such matters and I have been looking back through the political record. I find that there was outstanding support for the concept of a multi-option referendum from the late Donald Dewar, the late John Smith and the current Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Order.

According to an account of 4 May 1992 of Mr Brown's speech at a May day rally:

"Mr Brown called on all organisations to support a ‘persistent, determined and concerted' campaign to force the Tory Government to accept a multi-option referendum on Scotland's future."

I know that the people were well briefed—[Interruption.]

Presiding Officer, the subject matter—

She mentioned it.

I know that the people who wrote the account were well briefed, because the Labour Party researcher in 1992 was Wendy Alexander.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-648)

I have no plans at present to meet the Prime Minister, although given what I have found out about his support for a multi-option referendum I might arrange a meeting quickly.

Presiding Officer,

"We do not cut crime by cutting the prison population; we cut the prison population by cutting crime."

Those are the words of my colleague John Lamont in debate this morning and I cannot improve on them.

Take a bow, John.

Order.

At decision time tonight we will be asked to cut the prison population by reversing two decisions of the Parliament: one that was taken by the Justice Committee; and one that was taken two weeks ago by the full Parliament. The will of the Parliament was that home detention curfew licences were not appropriate for serious criminals. How can the First Minister justify flouting what he once called "the basic tenets" of parliamentary democracy?

Later today we will test whether there is parliamentary support for the sensible measures that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is taking to cope with the prison crisis in Scotland—a crisis that we certainly inherited from the previous Administration.

I will try to put these things into a proper context. We need to manage sensibly an extremely difficult situation. As Annabel Goldie well knows, one of the first decisions that the SNP made in Government was to move ahead quickly with the prison building programme. She also well knows that not one single prison was built during the time that the Conservatives were last in power in Scotland; a period of over 17 years. She further knows, as we discussed last week, that far more people absconded from open prisons in Scotland when the Conservatives were in power than is the case today. Although I agree with her on a number of aspects of the criminal justice system—incidentally, I agree that automatic early release of offenders is an issue that the McLeish commission should properly review—I put it to her that not only was the prison programme deficient under Conservative rule, it was the Conservative party that introduced automatic early release in 1993.

That is rank hypocrisy, First Minister. When the previous Scottish Executive reversed a decision of the Parliament on fishing, it was lambasted by Richard Lochhead, condemned by John Swinney, and derided—yes, derided—by Alex Salmond for doing so. The hypocrisy is for others to judge, however.

I return to the core problem of too many prisoners and not enough prison places. In the words of the First Minister this morning, it is "a crisis". However, there is a safer option than allowing serious criminals out on to our streets earlier than is the case at present. What would happen if any part of the prison estate were to be rendered unusable through storm damage, flood or whatever? Surely the Government has emergency or contingency measures in place. What are those measures? Why does the Scottish Government not use them now to get us through this crisis? If not, perhaps the dangerous truth is that there is no plan B. Perhaps no such emergency plans are in place.

Contingency plans are in place. What is important is to ensure that we have adequate prison capacity to deal with the number of prisoners in Scotland. The SNP Administration took an immediate decision on that, on gaining office—a decision that others had put off for many years.

We do not want to take up the proposal that the Tory justice spokesperson has made, which I understand is to send Scottish prisoners to fill unused jail capacity in Northern Ireland. Instead, we will engage in the sensible management of the Scottish prison system and ensure that we have adequate prison capacity. The issue that we must face is that Scotland is the third most-jailed country in the world per head of population. We realise that building the prison capacity that we need will not build our way out of that difficulty. We need the review of the prison system that this Government has commissioned so that—I hope—all members will be able to unite behind a sensible approach to justice and imprisonment.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-649)

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

This week, the SNP Government privatised the prison transport service for young people for the first time. It gave a major new contract to Reliance. Does the First Minister think that Reliance is the right organisation to carry out that public service?

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice takes decisions that are necessary for the proper working of the prison system in Scotland.

I wonder why the First Minister does not listen to his Cabinet members on the issue. Look at what they said when they were in opposition. Nicola Sturgeon said:

"Reliance assurances have been shown not to be worth the paper they are written on".

She also said that

"Running public services for private profit is a recipe for disaster."

Kenny MacAskill said that it was wrong to hand prison escorts to Reliance; the SNP said that that was "gambling with public safety". So why have the First Minister and Kenny MacAskill just given Reliance brand-new services to run? What kind of backtracking, breathtaking, promise-breaking U-turn is that? It is like Margaret Thatcher waking up one morning and saying that Arthur Scargill was the right person to run our coal mines after all. The headline on one SNP press release was "Reliance: Time to dump the Keystone Cops". Why have Salmond and MacAskill, Scotland's Laurel and Hardy, just given a new contract for more services to the keystone cops? Why has the First Minister privatised that service?

We should remember that it was the Administration that Nicol Stephen served as Deputy First Minister that introduced Reliance into the justice system in the first place. What Nicol Stephen is talking about, but what he apparently did not find time to mention to the Parliament, is the transportation of young offenders in people carriers. Nicol Stephen should not suggest that public safety is going to be jeopardised by the transportation of young offenders in people carriers. I do not think that Nicol Stephen's evidence, in all conscience, justifies his hyperbole.

---

Whisky Industry (Alcohol Duty)

To ask the First Minister, in light of the tax increase on spirits announced in the budget, what plans the Scottish Government has to safeguard Scotland's prime economic products. (S3F-667)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 7 February, warning against rises in alcohol duty for whisky. The Chancellor's approach to alcohol duty was a crude money-making scheme that failed to recognise the position of the whisky industry and the premium products that it makes. The Scottish Government works very closely with the Scotch whisky industry and we will continue to express our support for a fairer balance in the burden of taxation on different types of drink production. We will also continue to offer as much support as we can to deal with the other challenges and issues that the industry may face over the months and years ahead.

In the light of Labour's tax hike on whisky, may I ask for the First Minister's response to the remarks made at Westminster by Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Scotland, that he has

"a long-standing interest in ensuring"

that Scotch whisky distilleries and

"bottling plants in my constituency—the world-famous Johnnie Walker plant in Kilmarnock"

and Scotland's biggest distillery, that of the Edrington Group in Drumchapel,

"have a level playing field … in the United Kingdom and throughout the world"?—[Official Report, House of Commons, 28 November 2007; Vol 468, c 271.]

The member makes excellent points. When considering fairness and parity for the whisky industry in Scotland, we should remember that the alcohol tax on whisky is 51 per cent higher than the tax on alcohol served as beer, and 31 per cent higher than the tax on alcohol served as wine. That disparity is extremely difficult to defend. Indeed, it is impossible to defend when one considers the importance of the whisky industry.

Des Browne may have one view, but many Labour back benchers at Westminster were lobbying with another view. Some Labour MSPs, too, were lobbying with that other view. On "Newsnight", Pauline McNeill failed to say whether she supported an increase in tax on whisky.

There is a real issue around the tax on alcohol content. There is discrimination against one of Scotland's finest products, and the real issue of whether the tax on low-strength beers and ciders should be substantially reduced, in contrast to the tax on higher-strength alcohol. Those issues were not considered in the chancellor's budget. As he himself admitted, the basis on which the swingeing tax increase was imposed on whisky was purely one of finance, as opposed to any other factor.

The First Minister will surely recognise that companies such as Inver House Distillers, which owns the award-winning Barrogill whisky that recently received royal approval, provide vital jobs in some of the most rural and remote parts of Scotland. Would the First Minister please agree to meet representatives of companies such as Inver House and other smaller distillers in the remoter parts of the Highlands to discuss what is a vital rural employment issue?

Yes, I will gladly do that. As the member knows, the number of jobs that are dependent on the whisky industry in Scotland probably reaches about 40,000. It is a vital national industry and a vital national resource. I will be glad to have such a meeting.

Does the First Minister accept that the increase in taxation on spirits that was announced by the chancellor will increase the price of an average bottle of malt whisky by just over 2 per cent but will increase the price of a cheap bottle of vodka by around 10 per cent? Does the First Minister agree with his Cabinet Secretary for Justice that alcohol taxation should be used to combat binge and underage drinking, to which cheap spirits are a significant contributor?

It should be possible to devise a system of taxation on alcohol that takes alcohol content into account. That seems to me especially important if we are to address the issue seriously. I do not agree with some in the Labour Party who argue that it is necessary to impose taxation that discriminates against our premium product and our national drink. I know that others in the Labour Party do not share their colleagues' view and were astounded by the swingeing tax increase.

I tend to agree with the argument presented by John McFall MP and Brian Donohoe MP—and by some Labour MSPs—that, in pursuing a vital and valuable campaign to address public health in Scotland, we need not discriminate against whisky, our premium product. I do not think that one follows from the other. If the Labour Party says that we can pursue a health campaign only at the expense of the whisky industry, it should say so openly and be judged on that.

---

Illiteracy (Schoolchildren)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to eliminate illiteracy among schoolchildren. (S3F-661)

There will be a broad campaign across society, including MSPs. We are introducing the curriculum for excellence, which places literacy at the heart of the curriculum. The curriculum for excellence has all-party support and will, I hope, be taken forward in that spirit of consensus.

Is the First Minister aware that the recently published outcomes on literacy for the curriculum for excellence do not concentrate on functional literacy? Is he aware that West Dunbartonshire Council—a local authority with significant pockets of deprivation—has eradicated illiteracy over a 10-year period? Is he also aware that his Government has refused to show the leadership required to roll out that programme across Scotland? Will the First Minister today commit to tackling functional illiteracy? Will he back the independent commission on literacy that we are establishing? It is tasked with developing a plan to eradicate illiteracy right across Scotland.

As Rhona Brankin knows, the results of the Scottish survey of achievement show that primary pupils in West Dunbartonshire are below average in literacy. That is not to say that valuable lessons cannot be taken from the West Dunbartonshire initiative. However, substantial work will have to be done to reconcile the various measurements that are used at present.

I hope that Rhona Brankin will accept that functional literacy is at the very heart of the range of initiatives within the curriculum for excellence, as is the guarantee that literacy is very much a priority for this Administration—indeed, I hope that it was for the previous Administration.

The First Minister will be aware of the increasing number of children in Scotland who are classified as "new to English". Those children are very welcome. Does the First Minister agree that councils throughout Scotland must, when making political choices in their budgets, ensure that those children are properly supported?

The children of migrant workers are entitled to the same levels of education and support from local authorities as any other children. Under our historic concordat with local government, we will provide £34.9 billion over the next three years. That is an increase of 13 per cent over the period, which will allow local authorities to discharge that important responsibility.

Has the Scottish Government had discussions with local authorities about providing extra support for teachers who are developing literacy skills in primary school classes where there are substantial language barriers?

Discussions on that matter are on-going. The training and development of members of the teaching profession—at a time when we are planning to have 20,000 new teachers in Scottish schools over the next few years—will be fundamental. The issue that Elizabeth Smith raises will be a priority in one of the many initiatives for the training and encouragement of the vast number of new teachers moving into the profession.

---

Financial Services Industry (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister whether he has met any representatives from the Scottish financial services industry, in light of the current uncertainties in global financial markets. (S3F-668)

We are fortunate in Scotland to have the Financial Services Advisory Board—FiSAB—a pioneering collaboration between the Scottish Government and the wider public sector, the financial services industry, the trade unions and Universities Scotland. I have an opportunity to meet senior executives from our financial services industry on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues of importance to the industry.

I thank the First Minister for his reply. I am slightly mollified, but I would like an assurance from him that the lack of monitoring and foresight that we now realise was present in the management of Northern Rock is absolutely absent in Scotland. If he cannot give that guarantee—which I agree is a bit of a tall order—what can he say to reassure me that we will not make the same mistakes?

I am glad that I have mollified Margo MacDonald—that is something that I do not always manage to do, so I will take that as a substantial advance. Perhaps I could mollify her further. A FiSAB meeting that I chaired on 3 September asked for a report to be prepared that would consider financial instability throughout the world and the particular impact that it might have on the Scottish financial sector. That report, which was discussed on 26 February at a meeting chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, found that although Scotland will not be insulated from world financial instability, the foundations of the Scottish financial sector are competitive and strong. That was demonstrated recently when HBOS sustained, resisted and recovered from a speculative attack on its share price.

We believe that the Scottish financial sector does not have the structural deficiencies that some financial sector companies have paid heavy penalties for elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but we cannot be insulated from a global financial crisis. In yesterday's report, the Financial Services Authority admitted to the most astonishing and serious lack of scrutiny in its administration of the financial sector throughout the UK. I welcome the fact that the FSA is admitting and accepting serious deficiencies. There will have to be changes in financial regulation. I hope that when we move to a position in Scotland in which we administer and scrutinise our financial sector, we will do substantially better than the FSA has managed to do over the past few years.

The First Minister mentioned yesterday's report from the FSA. I compare that report and the regulation of financial services in southern Ireland. Does he agree that Scotland could learn many lessons from southern Ireland and that when we get control of the regulation of financial services here we could use southern Ireland as a model for how to promote our industry?

The success of the Republic of Ireland in a range of areas provides a good working model for Scotland. Indeed, the success of the Republic's financial sector has been an extremely impressive achievement over recent years.

We should not underrate the consequences for our financial sector of financial instability worldwide, but we should have confidence that the sector in Scotland is strong, robust and extremely competitive. One of the aspects that came out of the FiSAB report was that, even in a difficult situation for the financial sector, there are opportunities as well as challenges. I am sure that the financial sector in Scotland will be capable of rising to those opportunities, regardless of the failures of the regulatory agencies.

In his meetings with representatives of the financial services sector, what does the First Minister say about their very real fears regarding the damage to their industry and its competitiveness that is threatened by his plans to make Scots pay at least 15 per cent—probably more like 25 per cent—more in income tax than the rest of the United Kingdom?

I am sure that financial sector workers and companies welcome the freeze in council tax that has been introduced throughout Scotland, just as they were concerned about the runaway increases in that tax under the Labour-Liberal Administration. Financial sector workers, like other people throughout Scotland, welcome the opportunity to have taxation that is based on ability to pay, as opposed to the 60 per cent increase in council tax under the Labour Party.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for ministers—or, indeed, any MSP—to mislead the Parliament? The First Minister knows that a multi-option referendum is not support for a single transferable vote, which of course is what he said was his policy yesterday, to universal astonishment. Do you agree that that signals his retreat from his own policy of independence?

Ms Baillie, that is not a point of order; that is a debating matter. I have made my position clear on that before.

Meeting suspended until 14:15

On resuming—