Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2457)
I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.
Last October, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform set up an independent budget review to look at whether
Because we are in the business of discussing the budget for next year, and the review report will be published when the budget is published.
That is a change of position. I remind the First Minister that, when the finance minister announced the review, he promised that its findings would be published this year. When the chairman of the review team handed the report over to the finance minister in July, he said that it would be made public in the near future. It was only after the finance minister had read the report that he decided to suppress it and delay publication by a year—in other words, until after next May's elections. What exactly is in the independent report on how the Government has spent taxpayers' money that the finance minister does not want the Scottish public to see?
The review report is not an independent report on how the Government has spent money; it is an independent report, commissioned by us, on how we can look at future Executive budgeting in creative ways that might assist taxpayers and service users in Scotland to enjoy better services at more efficient rates. It seems to me to be imperative on us as a devolved Government to ensure not just that we have experts producing reports but that, when they produce a comprehensive report that is of genuine interest to ministers and within the Executive, they have an opportunity to discuss its detail with departmental heads and individual ministers as part of the decision-making process for the next year's budget. That would seem an entirely sensible way to take matters forward.
I point the First Minister to what Tom McCabe said about the review. In his press release, Tom McCabe said that it was
I believe absolutely in a transparent budget process. That is why I brought to Parliament what became the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, which sets out how we in the Scottish Parliament deliberate on our budget, which we do far more openly than anyone else does. It is also why we have insisted all along that not only the report to which Ms Sturgeon refers but other reports that we have commissioned should be properly published and be part of parliamentary scrutiny.
The question is very simple. Do the Scottish public not have the right to see an independent report on the Government's financial competence and management before rather than after next year's election? I remind the First Minister that he said in the chamber just a few weeks ago, and has repeated today, that he wants to be judged on his record, but when he has an independent assessment of his record, what does he do? He suppresses it and runs away and hides in a corner. Does that not say it all about the Government's record? The Scottish people will draw their own conclusions from the Government's secrecy and will conclude next May that it really is time for change.
The Scottish people will draw their conclusions from the fact that, every week in the chamber, the Scottish National Party promises £100 million for this, that and the next thing and suggests that it can spend that money and make tax cuts at the same time. That is nonsense and trivial budgeting from the SNP.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2458)
At its next meeting, the Cabinet will of course discuss matters that are important to Scotland.
The First Minister's dismissal of Ms Sturgeon's points is understandable as she is the deputy leader of a party that has turned making extravagant spending promises without costing them into an art form. However, as I am the leader of a party with a somewhat more respectable track record in providing value for money—unlike the nationalist party, my party has been in government—I would be obliged if the First Minister answered my question.
I will be absolutely clear yet again. The report was commissioned by ministers for future budgets starting from 2008-09 and it will be published at the start of the Parliament's scrutiny of the budget proposals from this Executive or any future Executive. The Executive will present to Parliament a proper budget bill for deliberation in the most transparent way, as set out by the Executive and agreed to by Parliament back in 1999 and 2000. That is the right way for a budget to be deliberated.
Wriggling, squirming, prevarication—I do not think that the taxpaying public think that the Executive's covert behaviour is trivia. Let us try a simpler question. Last Thursday in the chamber at 10 past 12, when I told the First Minister that he had £76 million of unallocated funds in the health budget, he rubbished his own figures and denied that he had the money. At 1 o'clock, his spin doctors were in a vortex and were waffling to journalists. They admitted that the money existed, but said that it was in the wrong column, because it has been allocated. Here is the interesting part—no one knows to where it has been allocated. Only the Executive could blow 76 million quid in three quarters of an hour and not know where it has gone. Will the First Minister tell us why money is sloshing around that he does not know about, why he is hiding his budget figures from the country and why the Executive seems to have no grip whatever on Scotland's public finances?
It was not the budget document that I rubbished, but the question. The money had been spent—not in the Executive but on the health service. The reason why today the health service has delivered a reduction of 16 per cent in the in-patient day-case waiting list, an increase of 11 per cent in the number of operations, an increase of 256 per cent in the number of angioplasties, an increase of 24 per cent in the workforce of medical and dental staff, an increase of 27 per cent in the number of doctors in training and a host of other improvements is that the money is being spent. Unlike during the Tory years, we have the money and are spending it on improvements in the health service. We are proud of that.
At 12.12 on 28 September, the First Minister managed to sort of answer a question in the Parliament. For a week, the information that he has just given has apparently been known only to him. The people of Scotland will find it pathetic that it takes pressure from Opposition politicians to elicit any information about a specific item in the First Minister's budget document. That is a shambles.
The fact that I have answered the question in a way that the member does not like does not mean that it has not been answered. The report will be published before the Parliament has to scrutinise or vote on the budgets for 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. It is entirely proper that a report that has been prepared for ministers by a group of independent experts should be discussed with ministers and departments, so that we can look seriously at the experts' recommendations.
I will take two questions from back benchers.
As the First Minister knows, for three years the Executive has been considering legislative options to close the loophole that was created by the Transco case. Today is the final opportunity for the Executive to announce its position on my proposal for a member's bill to amend the law on culpable homicide and close that loophole. My proposal has attracted support from 68 members of the Scottish Parliament. Will the First Minister assure me that he acknowledges that my proposal is fundamentally different in scope—in relation to the organisations that it would cover and to individual directors' liability—from the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill, which the Home Office has introduced?
We do not take the decision lightly, as Karen Gillon knows. We have taken considerable time to deliberate on the details and the on-going discussions that have been taking place in Whitehall. The Cabinet discussed the matter yesterday, but it did not reach a final conclusion. We hope and intend to do so before the deadline for responding to Karen Gillon's proposal, but we must of course abide by the legal advice that we receive and consider the context in which we work. Legal advice will be central to our decision, so I hope that the decision that we formally present to Karen Gillon later today or tomorrow will be able to stand the test of time.
The First Minister is aware that a dawn raid was carried out yesterday on the Benai family from Algeria. Oussama Benai, who is 11 years old, attends St Brendan's primary school in my constituency, whose head teacher, Mr Donal Currie, is reported as saying:
Obviously, we want a report on that specific case so that we can decide whether such representation would be appropriate.
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-2474)
I have no immediate plans to meet the secretary of state.
The First Minister will be aware of the shock and concern that many parents have expressed on learning that some Scottish schools have been fingerprinting their children to control their access to facilities such as libraries. The Minister for Education and Young People, Peter Peacock, has issued a written answer, which states:
That is scaremongering nonsense of the worst kind from Shiona Baird and the Green party. I understand why they should wish to raise their apparently genuine concerns about civil liberties in the Parliament, but they should not do so on the basis of misinformation in an attempt to scare parents in Scotland that something as sinister as the sinister fingerprinting of children is going on in our schools.
The First Minister is totally wrong. We have evidence that parents have not been consulted before their children have been fingerprinted. The First Minister puts great emphasis on the voluntary consent of the parents, but he is obviously not aware of another answer from Mr Peacock, saying:
Mr Peacock made the Executive's position crystal clear, and we understand that what he said has been implemented. If there are any individual instances in any local authority in Scotland of its not being implemented properly, it is incumbent on those who claim to have evidence of that to go to that school or local authority to correct the procedure that is in place. They should not come here to scaremonger among parents in Scotland that in some way criminal fingerprinting of Scottish children is going on. Shiona Baird should retract the accusation and she should be more honest with the chamber and with parents in Scotland about what is going on and what should be going on, and about what is right and what is wrong.
Vocational Training
To ask the First Minister what plans there are to address vocational training needs for 14 to 16-year-olds. (S2F-2467)
Current pilot skills for work courses and new developments in school-college partnerships indicate that there is a need and a demand for quality vocational options and access to quality teaching and facilities.
Does the First Minister agree that, to secure continued growth in Scotland's economy, we need to build on the work of the skill centres that we already have, and to put a new focus on vocational training to run alongside the range of measures that we are taking to support education at all levels? Does he also agree that it is vital that the beneficiaries of the new centres receive equal options, benefit from equal treatment, and receive accreditation that is given equal value to the accreditation of those pursuing the academic route? Does he further agree that our next generation of plumbers, joiners, mechanics and hairdressers is entitled to parity of esteem among members of the Parliament and people throughout Scotland?
I believe strongly that there is a need in our economy and our society for more people with trades and for more young people to be inspired to go into trades; we all know that from our domestic and business experience. I also believe that there is a need to ensure that alternative options are available to young people in our schools. The academic nature of course and curriculum development in the early 1990s was wrong and has led to some of the behaviour problems in our schools and to young people losing the inspiration that they might have had. It has also resulted in fewer young people going into trade-based careers.
Although many of us share the objectives of the First Minister's policy, does he not agree that its implementation should not create a social or educational divide where none exists? It is important that we do not send out the message that pupils with ability should not consider a skilled occupation.
Although vocational options will be particularly appropriate for those youngsters who have found school to be less inspiring than it should be—as many pupils did during the 1990s—a wide range of certified vocational options should be available to all school pupils.
Scottish Prison Service (Budget)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Prison Service's budget represents good value for money. (S2F-2459)
The budget allows the Scottish Prison Service to meet its performance targets and to invest some £1.5 million each week on the modernisation of the prison estate. The Prison Service also contributes to the Executive's efficient government programme and the cost per prisoner place has fallen from more than £32,000 in 2003-04 to just over £30,000 in 2005-06.
I welcome the slopping-out claims settlement offer that has recently been made, which will reduce the £80 million provision in the budget to a mere £40 million, which represents some 15 per cent of the operational budget.
I agreed with Jim Wallace when he said this week that that is a myth and that the position has been completely misrepresented since that time. The reality of course is that a positive choice was made back then to ensure that the money that was in the budget was spent on tackling drugs and drug crime in Scotland. The result of that is record levels of drug seizures; record numbers of drug criminals caught; more criminals having the proceeds of their crimes taken from them and reinvested in the community; and a drug enforcement agency that is the admiration of the rest of Britain. That is the proud record of the devolved Government. The Scottish National Party might have disagreed with the choice, but it was wrong and we were right.
As we started late, there is still time for the last question.
Criminal Justice (European Union)
To ask the First Minister what representations the Scottish Executive has made to the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the UK veto in the European Union on criminal justice measures continues to protect the independence of the Scottish justice system. (S2F-2462)
Ministers and officials regularly discuss a range of European Union issues with colleagues in the UK Government. Like the UK Government, we are committed to working co-operatively with our European partners in the fight against serious cross-border crime. We are open to engaging in discussion on how that co-operation might be improved, although we remain to be persuaded of the merits of the move to qualified majority voting.
I thank the First Minister for the courtesy of his answer, which is perhaps an unusual factor in a response to me. However, I accept what he said.
Oh!
Andy Kerr is saying, "Don't go there," so I will not go underneath the blankets with Phil Gallie.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise that I could not give you notice of this point, which concerns an issue that arose during the First Minister's exchange with Miss Goldie. He referred to the budget report that was produced for ministers to consider and to allow them to prepare for the next Executive's budget, following the election. It seems to me that in the past, when officials or taxpayers' money has been used to produce information that is intended to assist in producing budgets for after an election, it was felt that that information should be shared. It is not the property of Labour and Liberal ministers alone.
That is not a point for me.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time