Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2355)
Later today, I will be putting forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Labour is committed to protecting investment in our schools and hospitals. Last week, on television, the Deputy First Minister was asked eight times whether she would match that promise; eight times she failed to do so. Will the First Minister promise to protect investment in schools and hospitals?
Yes. [Laughter.]
Order.
The question, though, that voters will be asking themselves is this: when the First Minister says yes, is that the same as when he said yes, he would cancel student debt; when he said yes, we would have smaller class sizes; when he said yes, first-time buyers would get grants to help them; when he said yes, he would match our school building programme brick for brick; or when he said yes, he would build the Glasgow airport rail link? The trouble is that no one believes the First Minister’s promises anymore. He breaks them all, so why should we believe that he will protect Scotland’s schools and hospitals?
The answer is yes for the 65 out of 94 headline manifesto commitments that the Government has already achieved.
As Iain Gray asked a longish question, perhaps I can give the chamber a few highlights of the things that have been achieved. We have achieved a council tax freeze over the past three years; the small business bonus scheme, which was opposed by the Labour Party; and abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges. We also reversed Labour’s decision to downgrade the accident and emergency units at Monklands and Ayr hospitals and delivered funding for 1,000 more police on the streets of Scotland. I know that the chamber is anxious for me to go on to list the other 60 but, with the Presiding Officer’s forbearance I will list just one more: the Scottish National Party is the only party committed to public services in Scotland against the cuts being planned by each and every one of the London parties.
Let us look at the SNP’s commitment to public services in Scotland. Two and a half thousand teachers and 1,000 classroom assistants have been cut; the Edinburgh airport rail link and its 3,000 jobs have been cut; the Glasgow airport rail link and its 1,300 jobs have been cut; and £2 billion-worth of schools and hospitals have been cut, the cost of which has been a cut of 30,000 construction jobs.
Thirty years ago, I was a teacher organising strikes against Tory cuts; now our teachers are organising strikes against nationalist cuts. The First Minister’s economic spokesperson has just been on the television, saying that under the SNP there will be no miserable cuts. What are these—happy cuts?
I wonder whether Iain Gray has had the opportunity to read the report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I know that it embraces all the London parties and perhaps we will get the opportunity to come to the other two in due course. The IFS report, which was published yesterday, says that Labour has not specified 87 per cent of the cuts implied in its budget programme.
Labour plans to cut £250 billion from front-line public spending departments throughout the UK, which implies a £25 billion cut for Scotland. The economic adviser to the Scottish Government first revealed that and it was confirmed—[Interruption.] Does Iain Gray or Andy Kerr dispute the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which confirmed the information that the Scottish Government supplied? The reality of the spending programmes of the London parties and of the mountain of cuts that the Labour Party plans is being laid bare in the election campaign. What better argument could there be for Scotland to have control of its resources, to ditch the £100 billion of wasted expenditure on Trident nuclear weapons and to take the only alternative to the decade of despair that every London-based party plans?
The First Minister’s record on cuts is second to none. He has made more cuts than any politician in the past 13 years of British politics. Now we read in no less than the Financial Times about the cruellest cut of all—cutting a deal with the Tories. We should not be surprised, because the SNP’s London leader, Angus Robertson, votes with the Tories more often than Scotland’s only Tory MP does. David Cameron’s local champion must be Alex Salmond, who voted with David Cameron 70 per cent of the time. Alex Salmond could not get out of his bed to vote for the national minimum wage, but he gets out of his bed to vote for the Tories. [Interruption.]
Order.
I ask the First Minister to tell us now: will he betray Scotland by doing a deal with the Tories?
Iain Gray seems blissfully unaware that, in this Parliament, he votes with the Conservative party 75 per cent of the time—[Laughter.]
Order.
I remind Iain Gray that we started the election campaign with a Labour chancellor—Alistair Darling, for whom Iain Gray used to work—saying that the cuts that the Labour Party planned would be tougher and deeper than those of Margaret Thatcher. I know that Iain Gray will want to provide the advice that he gave Alistair Darling in the past and to give advice in the future, but it is significant that Gordon Brown had no problem with meeting Margaret Thatcher, although he seems to have considerable problems with meeting old-age pensioners in Halifax. [Interruption.]
Order. [Interruption.]
It was Rochdale, not Halifax.
Lord Foulkes, when I ask for order, I expect to have it.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
I am delighted to hear that my party is so popular with so many opponents. I am not in the least surprised at that development.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2356)
Annabel Goldie’s party does not seem to be popular with many voters.
As far as I can judge, the Prime Minister is not in a mood to meet anyone at the moment.
Last Sunday, in a television studio, the First Minister was asked:
“had Thomas Hamilton, the Dunblane killer, survived and been sentenced to life imprisonment in a Scottish jail, would you have released him if he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer?”
The First Minister replied, “No”. I agree totally with his answer. Will he explain the difference between the mass murderer Thomas Hamilton and the mass murderer Mr al-Megrahi?
It seems to me that the hypothetical case of Thomas Hamilton would not have passed the first principle in the Scottish Prison Service guidance for the release of prisoners on compassionate grounds. Annabel Goldie knows what that principle is.
I will cut to the chase and leave the First Minister to explain. The point is that the integrity and status of our Scottish criminal justice system are at stake and that the First Minister has publicly stated two irreconcilable and totally contradictory positions in relation to two mass murderers. I ask him again how he justifies that contradiction. How can he support the release of one mass murderer and totally oppose the release of another?
I take it from Annabel Goldie’s second question that she does not know what the criteria for compassionate release are. I have them here, so perhaps I can remind her. The first criterion for the Scottish Prison Service, whose recommendation must be made before a minister can even consider compassionate release, to examine is that
“The release of the prisoner will not create a risk of re-offending or put the safety of the public at risk”.
Whatever may be said about Mr al-Megrahi’s release, nobody seriously believes that it put the safety of the Scottish public at risk. From what we know of Mr Hamilton, who murdered 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, I would find it impossible for anyone to judge that he would not be at risk of reoffending or would not put the safety of the Scottish public at risk. If he could not even fulfil the first principle in the Scottish Prison Service guidance, my answer was not only consistent but fully justified.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2357)
The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Last night, Alex Salmond was asked on television whether he supported splitting casino banks from prudent, solid retail banks. Speaking as leader of the Scottish National Party, he sat on the fence. Today, he is presumably back as First Minister—at least till 1 o’clock—so which side is he on: the taxpayers or the casino bankers?
Tavish Scott should try to give the Parliament the full information that I discussed in the interview. To me, the point of interest and concern is a simple division not between retail and casino or investment banking, but between the aspects of the financial sector that need to be protected, supported and guaranteed and those that, in the words of the governor of the Bank of England, must be allowed to fail. That is the decision that must be made and, now that Tavish Scott has had that point explained to him, I know that he will accept that it is at least a matter for further consideration, which was the point that the governor of the Bank of England made.
That is certainly one interpretation of what the governor of the Bank of England said.
This week, I met an oil and gas business in Aberdeen that has developed a tidal turbine. It has international interest, which would create jobs in Scotland. It wants to develop the turbine in the United Kingdom at the Orkney test centre, but that Scottish business cannot get the money because its bank will not lend.
The financial institutions simply do not care. The Royal Bank of Scotland is 84 per cent owned by the taxpayer but admits that it has missed its £16 billion target for lending to business. However, such banks owe their existence to British taxpayers. Last week, the First Minister announced support from the Government for small and medium-sized businesses—that is one of the things on which he and I agreed in the Scottish budget this year—so will his Government work to get the banks back on the side of business in Scotland? What steps can he take to support their break-up to separate the safe, secure high street banks on which we all rely from the casino banks that gamble on the world’s markets with other people’s money?
Tavish Scott and I agree about the importance of enforcing the transmission system of lending from banks throughout the financial sector to businesses, not only renewable energy businesses but businesses throughout the country. I am bemused as to why that cannot be done when the Government has a majority shareholding in the Royal Bank of Scotland and a significant shareholding in the Lloyds Banking Group. I cannot understand why it has not been brought into effect. Therefore, there is a substantial measure of agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the SNP on that issue.
As Tavish Scott knows, I welcome agreement. I am always trying to find consensus, which is why I was so delighted to see that someone called Willie Rennie, who is standing for the United Kingdom Parliament, says in his election leaflet:
“We have got rid of the tolls on the Forth Bridge”.
I took that to mean that he agreed with us so much that he is planning an imminent defection to the SNP.
Pregnant Women (Smoking)
To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government is taking to encourage women to give up smoking during pregnancy. (S3F-2368)
The Scottish Government is investing record levels of funding in national health service smoking cessation services—more than £40 million in this spending period, compared with £27 million in the previous one. As a result, action to discourage women from smoking during pregnancy, using evidence-based approaches, is being taken throughout the country. In 2008, 1,733 pregnant women accessed cessation services—an increase of 31 per cent from 2007. It is encouraging that smoking during pregnancy has fallen from 29 per cent in 1995 to less than 20 per cent in 2008, although, as the research published earlier this week highlights, many pregnant women still find it difficult to quit in spite of all the best efforts of the NHS and others in Scotland. However, we continue to do all that we can to encourage them to make a healthy lifestyle choice for their own sake and that of their unborn child.
A pilot project is under way in NHS Tayside that offers grocery vouchers to pregnant mothers in exchange for their agreeing to quit smoking. What plans does the Government have to extend that pilot throughout Scotland?
Christine Grahame is right to point to the substantial intervention that is being piloted and to the success of the pilot. It should be recognised that we are taking wider action to shift cultural attitudes to smoking and to prevent young people from starting smoking in the first place. That action involves the ban on cigarette displays and cigarette sales from vending machines under the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010. It is also key to reducing smoking throughout the population, including among pregnant women. Ministers are actively considering how to roll the pilot out throughout the country.
Curriculum for Excellence (Implementation)
To ask the First Minister how ministers will respond to the Ipsos MORI poll carried out for the Scottish Government showing that only 25 per cent of secondary teachers believe that they are sufficiently prepared for the implementation of the curriculum for excellence in August 2010. (S3F-2363)
The curriculum management board survey of teachers found that the majority of those responding—58 per cent—expressed confidence that their school is ready to implement the new curriculum. However, the survey revealed that some teachers, particularly in secondary schools, lack confidence, which is why we have put in place a 10-point action plan that directly addresses the concerns that teachers have raised. The plan includes additional resources—making an additional £3 million available to support implementation—and provides the practical help that teachers have asked for. We are confident that the action plan will meet the concerns that some teachers have, and we will continue to discuss those concerns with the teaching unions. However, it is important that the management board, which includes representatives of the teaching unions, unanimously recommended that we go ahead with implementation in secondary schools, saying that it is
“assured that the existing programme plan remains realistic and achievable.”
The action plan was indeed welcome, although, as the First Minister knows, it does not fully meet the anxieties of teachers, let alone parents. Will he respond to the concerns raised by the Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association on subject content and coursework? Is he able to do so before the SSTA’s conference on 7 May? In particular, will he make up his mind whether pupils will be examined on the coursework that they study in their third year of secondary?
The education secretary is meeting the SSTA and the other teaching unions, because the discussions do not rest on the 10-point plan. It is important for Ken Macintosh to remember that the 10-point plan was announced after the various surveys, including the one that he mentioned, were done. The 10-point plan, which I have in front of me, goes into great detail on many of the areas that had been expressed as concerns. Ken Macintosh can be absolutely assured that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will be having close discussions with the SSTA and other teaching unions. I am sure that Ken Macintosh knows that, although the roll-out of the curriculum for excellence in secondary schools is this year, the examinations are four years away.
Will the First Minister acknowledge that the main reason for concern among secondary teachers about the curriculum for excellence is not its principles but the lack of any clear picture about what will be required of teachers to meet the new demands of the Scottish Qualifications Authority’s examinations structure? Can he give us a timescale for when that structure will be available?
That is one of the aspects that the education secretary is discussing with the teaching unions. I know that Elizabeth Smith has supported, or at least made favourable reference to, the 10-point plan, on which those detailed discussions are taking place in a friendly and co-operative way.
Elizabeth Smith will remember that every curriculum change that has been introduced into Scottish education over the past two generations has been met with concern and difficulties. That is inevitable when a substantial curriculum change is being introduced. The education secretary has emphasised our pledge to continue discussions so that we can allay those concerns, go through the points of concern and, I hope, achieve the same broad consensus across the teaching unions that already exists in the management board.
I know that Elizabeth Smith and others would not want to give the wrong impression about the range of substantive quotes from people who have come out strongly in favour not just of the 10-point plan but of the principle of the curriculum for excellence. It is supported by many significant people from across the education sector in Scotland, including parents, teachers and their representatives and headteachers. I know that she would not want to give the impression that there is not a huge reservoir of support from people who believe that the curriculum for excellence is indeed the way forward for Scottish education.
Will the First Minister clarify how the plan that he has spoken about will encourage—or perhaps, dare I say, champion—the cause of the curriculum for excellence with local authorities, which will play a substantial role in driving the issue forward?
One change that the education secretary—and, indeed, his predecessor—made was to bring on to the management board a wide representation of interest groups in Scottish education. There is substantial support for that reason. Of course change causes uncertainty and difficulty—that is an inevitable part of introducing change—but the manner in which the change is being processed and gone about, and the manner in which the education secretary has set to his task, will bring the maximum support behind the curriculum for excellence. I know that Hugh O’Donnell will be right there with us as we move to implement this vital reform.
Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)
To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will confirm its preferred minimum price per unit of alcohol. (S3F-2365)
As Jamie Stone knows, a highly constructive debate is taking place in the Health and Sport Committee on the principle of minimum pricing as a measure to reduce consumption and harm. As the Deputy First Minister indicated to the committee, we will come back to Parliament with our preferred minimum price. I am sure that Jamie Stone will appreciate the importance of that. Parliament will be able to scrutinise the specific price with the same energy that it is giving to scrutinising the policy. Of course, it is greatly encouraging to those of us who believe in minimum pricing that support for the principle continues to grow. There is a willingness by some colleagues to scrutinise the evidence closely and to look at the issue in terms of the long-term benefits to Scotland as well as the principle that is involved.
Will the price be announced before the bill is approved at stage 1? Does the First Minister agree that it is impossible for the Parliament properly to assess the Government’s policy of minimum pricing without a stated price, given that the price determines the legality of the policy, its impact on consumption and—one might add—receipts to the Exchequer? He will be aware of the Health and Sport Committee’s work on the bill, but is he also aware that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has asked for more information? Given that the delay in stating the price has delayed the bill, will he now listen to the Parliament’s serious concerns and commit to naming the price before the Parliament approves the bill at stage 1?
The price will certainly be named before any final vote in the Parliament.
I say to Jamie Stone that it is important—as I am sure Mr Rumbles will appreciate—to consider how much support there is in principle for the concept of minimum pricing. I said that I was greatly encouraged by the growing consensus, but I was particularly impressed by page 41 of the Liberal Democrat manifesto, which declares that the Liberal Democrats are
“in favour of the principle of minimum pricing”.
I was even more encouraged by Norman Lamb, who is the UK health spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. On the BBC’s “Daily Politics” show yesterday, he said that he fully backed minimum pricing as a concept. There is a growing support and a reservoir of concern, which is exemplified by the advocates of change in principle south of the border—[Interruption.]
Mr Rumbles.
When Mr Rumbles gives us the same support north of the border, that growing concern will be reflected in growing support for the policy in this Parliament, to match the growing support outside it.
The First Minister will be aware of the growing concerns about the legality of the proposed measure. Does he believe that the European Union should be notified now about any aspect of the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill, under the technical standards directive? If not, at what point does the European Union get notified about the minimum pricing proposals? Is it when the price is set? If that is the case, will the First Minister, in the interests of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny—he believes that he has nothing to fear—tell us when he will name the minimum price?
The member will have looked at the comments of Alcohol Focus Scotland about the claims of illegality under EU law, which I know Jackie Baillie would not wish to misrepresent in any way. It says that the opinion by the Advocate General to which the Scotch Whisky Association has referred
“relates to specific cases of minimum pricing for tobacco and cannot be interpreted as a judgement on the legality of minimum pricing in general. Indeed, the European Commission confirmed in a written statement”
to a Labour MEP
“earlier this year that EU legislation did not prohibit Member States from setting minimum retail prices for alcoholic beverages.”
Now that Jackie Baillie has been reminded of the excellent work of her colleague in the European Parliament in eliciting that clarification, she will not wish to give any impression that she and her colleagues are somehow trying to dodge the question of principle, which so many Labour members south of the border are prepared to embrace and support.
It seems passing strange that parliamentary representatives in England, where there is a serious problem with alcohol, are prepared to support minimum pricing, whereas some people in this Parliament in Scotland, where we have an even more serious problem with our relationship with alcohol, are trying to dodge the issue. Particularly at this time, because we wish to demonstrate the virtue of a consensus Parliament with a balance between the political forces, members of this Parliament are called on to put principle before political objectives when the health of Scotland is at stake.
I have closely scrutinised the evidence on this matter, and I remind the First Minister that the new data on minimum pricing from the University of Sheffield now predict almost half the number of alcohol deaths that the first estimate did, and 38 per cent fewer hospital admissions over 10 years compared with previously. How can the Health and Sport Committee and the Parliament reflect an accurate account of the Sheffield modelling when there have been such significant changes in the predictions?
Surely Mary Scanlon would be the first to accept that the figures from Sheffield still indicate a substantial number of avoidable and preventable deaths and, moreover, widespread damage to the general health of the population. Mary Scanlon would not wish to give any impression that a substantial number of deaths through the absence of minimum pricing would be acceptable. Even less would she wish to give the impression that she is oblivious to the substantial body of research that tells us that the policy is one of a number of measures that can help to reorientate Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, improve the public health of Scotland, save lives and protect our young people from harm.
The only piece of evidence in support of minimum pricing was the University of Sheffield study, which has been fatally undermined this week by the revisions to its figures. Why will the First Minister not drop the unwanted and probably illegal policy of minimum pricing, so that we can get on, develop a consensus and move on with proposals on which we can all agree, such as the proper enforcement of the current laws?
We all agree on enforcement of the current laws and we all agree that the issue requires to be addressed. I find it surprising that some members seem to be saying that, because the current University of Sheffield assessment of deaths and damage, if it is correct, is lower than the previous assessment, it is somehow acceptable. Surely the evidence indicates that minimum pricing can help to prevent deaths in Scotland and social and health damage in the general population. If Murdo Fraser accepts that aspect of the research, why on earth does he not find a consensus with those of us who want to address the problem and protect the health of Scottish society?
12:30 Meeting suspended until 14:15.