Plenary, 27 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, September 27, 2007

Official Report 768KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-168)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's plans to deliver the undertakings set out in our programme for Scotland.

The First Minister will be aware of the disturbing figures that were published on Tuesday, which showed a 13 per cent increase in the number of Scottish youngsters who have been placed on the child protection register. Many people believe that thousands more Scottish youngsters are at risk. How does the First Minister plan to address that growing problem?

The figures in the report cause us great concern, as do a number of reports that have been published this week. We are looking at the reports extremely carefully and will take determined action to secure the safety of Scotland's children.

I reiterate that my party is keen to work with the Government to make progress on the issue.

Given that the national consultation on fostering and kinship care ended last February, can the First Minister tell us when the new strategy will be published? Given that being brought up by family, including grandparents, often offers the best chance for many children who are at risk, will he give those grandparents the financial support that they need to help them raise those children?

I am extremely sympathetic to Wendy Alexander's second point. The new strategy will be published shortly. I welcome Wendy Alexander's commitment to working with the Government on an issue that should unite all parties and all members of Parliament.

As I hope the First Minister is aware, the recent Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 created the power to ensure that adoption allowances are paid. Will he agree to use the powers in the act to provide allowances for kinship carers, such as grandparents? In advance of such regulations coming into force, I will make an immediate proposal. It would cost less than £10 million to ensure that all kinship carers of looked-after children in Scotland were paid the recommended allowance for foster carers. Will the First Minister act now to introduce that small but vital measure? The problem is growing, and I am sure that all parties would be willing to fast-track my £10 million proposal to deal with it.

The Government is sympathetic to that proposal and to a range of other suggestions that have been made. We hope to make an announcement in that regard soon. I hope that when we do, it will attract the support of all parties in Parliament, as Wendy Alexander suggested.

As the First Minister is aware, the powers to make regulations will not come into force until next year, so it is important that we consider fast-tracking my proposal to provide £10 million for kinship care allowances, which would enable grandparents who are frightened to ask for support in bringing up their grandchildren to be supported immediately.

Wendy Alexander should take "Yes" for an answer. I am extremely positive about the proposal that she makes and about a number of other key initiatives. If the Labour Party makes positive proposals that could carry the support of all parties in Parliament, it will get an extremely positive response from this Government. I have given Wendy Alexander that indication. As she rightly said, the issue affects many children in Scotland. It is of the most serious concern, as the report indicated. Let us see whether we can move together as a Parliament and as a people to make progress with the proposals.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-169)

I have at present no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, I have written to him this week, in his capacity as Secretary of State for Defence. In my letter, I reiterated concerns that have been put to me, and which were raised during First Minister's question time last week, about the United Kingdom Government's failure to keep promises it made about the Scottish regiments.

Recently, figures were published that show the worryingly high numbers of criminals who breach their tagging orders. In response, the First Minister's Government said that

"the level of failure to comply does not suggest electronic monitoring does not work. Rather it demonstrates that all failures to comply with the order are reported".

Let me try to understand the Government's logic. Does it mean, for example, that if there were a breakout from one of our prisons, all that would matter to the Government is that there was someone there with a clicker to keep the tally? "Don't panic!" says the First Minister. "We've counted them." Is that laid-back indifference now the hallmark of his Administration?

The very last thing that this Administration can be accused of is being laid back. We have moved forward on many initiatives.

Annabel Goldie should accept that although electronic tagging was not introduced by this Government, it has had substantial success. In the response to which Annabel Goldie referred, we were identifying where there were failures. In those circumstances, people should be brought back in and dealt with appropriately. Electronic tagging has been a substantial success, but failures in the system—when people go outside the requirements that are placed on them—are dealt with. That is a sensible way to approach judicial policy.

As Wendy Alexander said, very gloomy statistics earlier this week revealed that more than 2,500 children are on the child protection register in Scotland. That is a 13 per cent increase on last year. More than six children are referred every hour of every working day. That is chilling. So, how did the Government respond? A year ago in opposition, the SNP showed justifiable concern over the issue, but now that the party is in Government we get complacency. I quote the Minister for Children and Early Years, who said that

"more people understand this and are taking action to report their concerns".

Once again, the attitude of the SNP Government is, "Never mind those vulnerable children and never mind the underlying problems—just so long as we've counted them."

I listened with interest to what the First Minister said in response to Wendy Alexander; I heard a lot of good intentions but no specific policy. I therefore ask the First Minister again: is this laid-back indifference now the hallmark of his Administration?

The hallmark of this Administration lies in its clearing up of the substantial mess that has been left to us in respect of crime and victims, and just about every other area of public policy.

I am surprised by Annabel Goldie taking such a negative attitude towards electronic tagging. When we had very constructive discussions with her and her justice spokesperson, electronic tagging was one of the measures that we considered for increased supervision of sex offenders. Electronic tagging must be acknowledged as one of the tools in our toolbox for dealing with criminality. If we can move together on that basis, as on other issues, Parliament will do itself proud in the eyes of the Scottish people.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of his Cabinet. (S3F-170)

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

Does the First Minister recognise the serious plight that is faced by Scotland's farmers and crofters as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Surrey? Does he recognise the sheer desolation that now faces farms and crofts as they see lambs that should already have been sold by now eating the fodder that wintering ewes will require? Does he recognise the immense animal welfare problems in Scotland, and the importance—given the scale of the crisis—of a wider welfare disposal scheme that is not restricted only to light lambs? Does he recognise the complete lack of confidence in sheep prices, which is hammering the cash flow of every crofting and farming business? Does he recognise that there is an urgent need for action?

Yes, I do. That is exactly what the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment has been doing. There is a substantial looming crisis on Scotland's hill farms and crofts. More than 1 million lambs will come off the hills in the next few weeks, but it is very difficult to get them off the hills because of the restrictions that were necessary for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, which we have relaxed as quickly as we were able. There are measures that we must take to ease the markets, such as the welfare scheme that has been proposed by the agriculture secretary.

We have still to persuade our colleagues in the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that that is the sensible approach—it is vital for Scottish agriculture. DEFRA does not, as yet, fully appreciate that climatically, Scotland comes into difficulties with forage and pasture much more quickly than is the case several hundred miles to the south. That is why, in conjunction with all of the interest groups in the industry, the agriculture secretary has been working so effectively to deal with those problems, to relax the restrictions as quickly as we can, and to identify what needs to be done to face the crisis in Scottish farming. That is why he enjoys such confidence from every sector of the farming industry.

The crisis remains. Will the First Minister ensure that Scotland's farmers and crofters are not left out of pocket by an outbreak for which they have no responsibility? Will he today guarantee that to the whole farming industry in Scotland?

I have proposed that there should be a welfare scheme—we are trying to convince DEFRA that that is the way to go. We have also been in talks with the European Commission on that and other matters, principally in order to effect Scotland's release from the restrictions as quickly as possible. The member will know about our discussions on relaxation of restrictions on drivers' hours, which will be necessary to give us the capacity to take lambs and other animals off the crofts and farms of Scotland.

I want to say something very serious to Nicol Stephen. Yesterday, the agriculture secretary was in Europe to try to effect the early release of Scotland from the foot-and-mouth restrictions, to pave the way to reopen our vital export markets. When the Government asked the Liberals and the Labour Party to pair Richard Lochhead to enable him to go to Europe to defend the interests of Scottish farmers, it was refused by the Liberals. The farming industry of Scotland will regard that as a stab in the back.

In the light of the answers by the First Minister, does he agree that the small farmers and crofters of the Highlands, whose land will be unfit for grazing very soon, require a Scottish national plan for emergency winter-feed supply to be instituted straight away? Animals will begin to starve in the next week or two.

I agree with Rob Gibson. That is why we have made such early moves on removing some of the key restrictions that are necessary to fend off foot and mouth. The chief veterinary officer and the agriculture secretary have moved as quickly as possible to ease restrictions. The agriculture secretary is fully aware, from on-going daily discussions with the industry, of the extent of the looming crisis in animal feed on the hills and farms of Scotland. I hope that after my remarks today, every party will attach the same priority to the matter as the agriculture secretary, the SNP and the Conservatives have.

Will the First Minister answer Nicol Stephen's question, and commit to giving financial help to our farmers in need?

Maybe Mike Rumbles should listen—I will try again. The agriculture secretary has prepared an animal welfare scheme through full discussion with interests in the industry. That scheme is being discussed with DEFRA. NFU Scotland is clear where the responsibility for animal welfare lies and where the funding lies. We have prepared the scheme with a view to implementing it. That is what the Government is trying to do.

We have a constituency question from Elaine Murray.

The First Minister is probably not aware of last night's announcement by Forest Garden of the loss of 70 jobs from its production plant at Steven's Croft in Lockerbie. The jobs will be transferred to sites in England. I am sure that the First Minister will want to join me in supporting the workers who will be affected and their families, and in wishing them well in their search for re-employment and re-skilling, in which they are being supported by Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway and by Jobcentre Plus.

Following yesterday's announcement of the review of the enterprise networks, will the First Minister advise us which agency will be responsible for early identification of companies that might be facing problems; for early engagement with the affected workers; and for co-ordination of skills and training needs in the context of alternative local job opportunities?

First, I express my sympathy for and solidarity with the workers in Elaine Murray's constituency. The enterprise networks will retain responsibility for the functions that she mentioned.

Given the comments from a range of business organisations throughout the country, Elaine Murray should acknowledge the extent of the favourable reception to the Government's proposals. Andy Willox said:

"Small businesses the length and breadth of the country are set to benefit from the shake-up of Scotland's enterprise agencies."

The chairman of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said:

"We are certainly on the right track. We welcome the positive changes".

The director of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, Iain McMillan, said:

"I welcome the Cabinet Secretary's announcement."

Elaine Murray must acknowledge that the changes to the enterprise networks will enable us to act more effectively in the situation that she mentioned and in many others.

The First Minister will be aware of the exchange of correspondence between the Lord Justice General and the Lord Advocate following the Sinclair acquittal. The Scottish Conservatives have previously pointed out that there is a potential conflict of interests in the fact that the independent head of the prosecution service in Scotland is also an adviser to the devolved Government.

Does the First Minister agree that the exchange of views that was published this morning reinforces our perception that there is a conflict of interests? Does he accept that the two roles should be separated?

I do not accept that there is a conflict of interests, but I accept that the exchange of correspondence raises some fundamental issues.

The Lord President wrote a letter expressing concern about the independence of the judiciary of Scotland. I make it clear that continued judicial independence is guaranteed in Scotland, not just by the situation that we have now but by the forthcoming judiciary (Scotland) bill, which Parliament is about to debate and discuss. Part 1 of the bill is on judicial independence, for which it gives responsibility to the First Minister and the Lord Advocate. We are both determined to uphold judicial independence in Scotland.

There is, however, a matter that Parliament as a whole needs to think about. We live in an age of parliamentary accountability. In days gone by, law officers in Scotland were seldom subjected to direct parliamentary accountability. It is to the benefit and credit of our system that we now have such accountability. The Lord Advocate was absolutely right to come to Parliament and give her view on the collapse of the World's End case. Given the public interest and concern in the case, no member of Parliament and very few people in Scotland would expect anything less. Inevitably, in giving that statement and answering questions, the Lord Advocate put forward the point of view of the Crown, or the prosecution service, as was done in open court. I do not agree that that should be taken as a direct criticism of a trial judge. It was a law officer responding to public concern and subjecting herself to parliamentary scrutiny. Surely that is how it should be in a democratic age in Scotland.

---

Red Tape

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has any plans to cut red tape for businesses. (S3F-187)

The Scottish Government is committed to removing existing unnecessary burdens on business and is against imposing any new unreasonable ones. We will work closely with the industry-led regulatory review group to ensure that that happens. We have instituted a major trawl across all areas of the group's work to identify regulations that might be subject to early review, in order to lighten business burdens. That has yielded a number of suggestions from across the broad spectrum of the Government's responsibilities, such as culture, energy and planning, in addition to the measures that have already been announced for agriculture and fisheries.

I thank the First Minister for his answer, which will be welcomed by small, medium-sized and large businesses throughout Scotland. I speak mainly to small businesses, and their top issue is the amount of red tape and bureaucracy, which is a distraction from their main aim of delivering economic success for their companies and the Scottish nation.

In 2006, a survey of members of the Federation of Small Businesses—the biggest non-governmental survey of businesses in the UK—found that 49 per cent them were dissatisfied with the volume of legislation, 51 per cent were dissatisfied with the complexity of legislation, and—

Could you ask a question, please?

Forty-seven per cent of small businesses were dissatisfied with the rate of change. Given those levels of concern, can the First Minister tell me what specific actions have been taken by the Government since May to begin the process of removing unnecessary burdens?

In June, we asked those who have responsibility for Government portfolios to identify regulations that are creating barriers for business—energy and the marine environment emerged as obvious candidates for improvement. By April next year, we will be in a position to present to the regulatory review group the final results of our cross-departmental trawl. Our determination to reduce unnecessary business regulation and to allow Scottish business to grow and prosper in the new environment is clear.

Any attempt to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on business is, of course, laudable and welcome. Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth spoke about slimming down the enterprise networks. When he was asked what savings would be made and what the impact would be on costs and staffing, he was unable to give any indication at all. Can the First Minister explain, as he moves towards reducing regulation on business, how his success and progress will be measured and indicated to Parliament?

The cabinet secretary said that he would bring to Parliament estimates of the savings. He also made the obvious point that cutting back bureaucracy will mean more funds for supporting business at the front line.

I should point out that one of the key aspects of the change is the removal of 21 local enterprise companies—a framework that was drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet by the late Bill Hughes 20 years ago. Why on earth should Iain Gray or anyone else believe that that is the appropriate network for Scotland in the 21st century? Removing 21 separate sets of governance and separate companies will inevitably bring about substantial savings and efficiencies.

In addition to the comments from businesses in Scotland that I read out earlier, I could read out similar comments from the Institute of Directors, from the Scottish Tourism Forum and from Councillor Tom Buchanan, the convener of the City of Edinburgh Council's economic development committee. Why is it that, when virtually all of Scotland is engaged in a positive discussion with the SNP, Iain Gray and the Labour Party are determined to strike a sour, defensive and negative note?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I will take points of order at the end of First Minister's question time, if I may.

---

Hospitals (Deep Cleaning)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will embark on a programme of deep cleaning in all hospital wards to eradicate superbugs, following the commitment by the Prime Minister on this matter. (S3F-184)

Cleaner hospitals are a top priority for the Scottish Government. National health service boards have procedures in place to reduce infections and can undertake a range of actions, including ordering deep cleaning, the use of rapid response teams, screening on admission and putting additional resources into surveillance. We are firmly of the view that we can achieve long-term success only by tackling health care associated infections through the implementation of a range of measures, such as the cleanliness champions programme, in which we now have more than 9,500 qualified champions; through prudent prescribing practice, to stop bugs developing resistance to antibiotics; and through the national hand hygiene campaign.

This week, Gordon Brown said:

"to make sure every hospital is clean and safe, following best practice around the world, there will be new funds direct to every hospital for a deep clean of our wards."

Will there be new funds direct to every hospital in Scotland? Yes or no.

Our purpose is not just to make it available to health boards to deep clean hospitals when necessary, but to keep the hospitals clean. If there was a single answer to this enormously serious problem, the Labour party might have stumbled across it in the past ten years in the United Kingdom, or the past eight years in Scotland.

When the new Edinburgh royal infirmary was built, it was a sterile hospital, but it quickly developed difficulties, as many other hospitals have done, with hospital-acquired infection. The priority for all of us should be to keep the hospitals clean, not just to deep clean them in the face of particular crises.

---

Electronics Industry

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to protect the electronics industry in Scotland. (S3F-179)

The Scottish Government is fully aware of the importance of the electronics industry to the Scottish economy: Scottish Enterprise has identified electronic markets as one of its priority industries and provides support for the industry generally, and for individual firms where appropriate.

The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism met Electronics Scotland on 11 September and is due to meet the Scottish Optoelectronics Association next week. He has also organised a workshop with the industry and its stakeholders on 26 November to highlight the opportunities, issues, obstacles and barriers for the sector, and to determine how the industry and the public sector can work together to ensure the continued development of electronics in Scotland.

I apologise to Bill Hughes, who is not dead but is, I am told, very much alive and kicking.

I am sure that Mr Hughes will be relieved to discover that.

The glowing obituary for Mr Hughes will be welcome at some time in the far-away future.

Which locally based experienced enterprise agency will have the responsibility for protecting the skilled jobs that are currently at risk in East Kilbride, both at Freescale Semiconductor and at JVC?

Freescale is exploring a range of options. Scottish Development International is working closely with senior management in the company to help to ensure the long-term future of the East Kilbride facility. Scottish Development International is not affected by the announcement that was made yesterday—it will continue to work. As Hugh O'Donnell will know, Colliers Advanced Technology Real Estate Group started public marketing of the two facilities on 4 September, and he can be sure that Scottish Development International will be doing everything possible to secure those vital jobs in Scotland.

I am told that reports of Mr Bill Hughes's death have been greatly exaggerated, and I reiterate my apology to the person who originated the design of the enterprise network.

Regarding the electronics industry, will ITI Techmedia continue to have a wide enough remit to help to build up and expand the leading-edge aspect of the electronics industry in Scotland, which—despite the difficulties of recent years—still makes a significant contribution to the Scottish economy?

Yes it does and yes it will, under the new proposals.

Alex Neil's last point is particularly valuable. We should remember that, despite the well-publicised difficulties and downturn in the sector, Scotland still plays a central role in the growth of computing and information technology. It produces 28 per cent of Europe's personal computers, 7 per cent of the world's personal computers and 29 per cent of Europe's notebook computers. As we deal with the difficulties and challenges of the sector, let us never forget the underlying strength and excellence of many electronics companies in Scotland.

I thank the First Minister for his answer to the question about Freescale. I am the constituency member for the area and, along with Adam Ingram, the local MP, and members of the local council, I have met the workforce and trade unions on a number of occasions. I acknowledge the work of Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire and SDI in this exercise.

However, as the First Minister might also be aware, a number of plants that are similar to the Freescale plant in East Kilbride are currently for sale across the United Kingdom. Could the First Minister therefore assure me that the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism will keep the local member—me—closely involved in relation to Colliers making a successful sale and, if that sale does not take place, in relation to how we deal with the difficult situation, which involves around 900 jobs?

I can give that assurance. The minister and the agency will keep local members fully informed.

I have taken an interest in the matter for obvious reasons, given the size of Freescale and its importance to Scotland. I am fully satisfied that everything possible has been done by the agencies involved to secure the jobs there.

I understand that Annabel Goldie wishes to make a point of order.

The First Minister has already graciously dealt with the issue that I had intended to raise. However, I would like to confirm the happy status in life of Mr Bill Hughes. He is alive and kicking and is a fine embodiment of Conservatism in Scotland.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The First Minister referred to pairing arrangements. As I want to be generous, I will accept that he has not been here for much of the past eight years and so will not know what his party has been up to in his absence. Presiding Officer, perhaps you would like to invite him to reflect on the number of times the Scottish National Party paired with members of the previous Government. What about when Ross Finnie or Rhona Brankin were pressing the case for Scottish fishing or, indeed, during the previous serious foot-and-mouth disease crisis? Of course, the SNP never agreed to any pairing arrangement on any issue.

We on the Labour benches are willing to consider pairing requests case by case because, unlike the SNP, we will act in the interests of the people of Scotland.

The member is well aware that that is not a point of order.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—