Plenary, 29 Nov 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, November 29, 2007

Official Report 802KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-304)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland, including putting the final touches to a worthy celebration of St Andrew's day, Scotland's national day, which will lead into a winter festival that will match the mood of optimism that is still sweeping the nation, in sharp contrast to the mood of despondency that I detected in some quarters when I visited London on Monday.

The First Minister will be aware that new statistics released this week show a 7 per cent rise in reported cases of domestic violence. That means that over 100 women a day now report domestic violence, which is the highest level since statistics have been recorded. The scale of domestic abuse in Scotland remains one of our collective shames.

On a more optimistic note, the First Minister may be aware of a United Kingdom report, also published this week, which reveals that Scotland has set the policy benchmark for the rest of the UK in tackling domestic abuse. I hope that tackling domestic abuse can remain a shared priority among all the parties in the Parliament. In that spirit, and given the particular role that local government has in tackling the problem, I ask the First Minister to reconsider whether tackling domestic abuse should become at least one of the 45 national targets set for local government in the recent concordat.

Wendy Alexander should include local government in that shared priority of tackling a huge and serious problem in Scotland. People in local government want to tackle the problem as much as Wendy Alexander and this Government do.

In passing, I congratulate Wendy Alexander on her success in dominating the news agenda in Scotland.

I will return to the issue of domestic violence shortly, but let me make an observation. I have asked for the permissibility of the donation to my election campaign to be checked, and we await the outcome of the Electoral Commission's investigation.

In the meantime, Presiding Officer, given the First Minister's remarks, let me make a further observation. When my team began compiling the information for our campaign return, we asked the Electoral Commission about the previous major party leadership contest held in Scotland, by the Scottish National Party, in 2004. Following a three-month election campaign—which involved the publication of personal manifestos, websites and campaign literature, and attendance at hustings—Alex Salmond, Roseanna Cunningham and Alex Neil, and the candidates for the deputy leadership, Nicola Sturgeon and Fergus Ewing, did not between them submit a single return or report any donations to the Electoral Commission. I find that an odd state of affairs for a party that is now lecturing us on transparency.

I return to my question about domestic violence. I accept that much of the direct funding to deal with violence against women stays with the Scottish Government, but the Government's planned changes in the funding of local government are removing other important sources of ring-fenced finance that are currently used to tackle domestic abuse. What assurance can the First Minister give to the women's organisations that this week have expressed their concern that the general reduction in ring fencing could lead to a postcode lottery in provision for victims of abuse throughout Scotland?

Wendy Alexander should accept that the outcome agreements that we are negotiating with each individual local authority will have the reduction of domestic violence as the highest priority. Members from throughout the Parliament should realise that the Government, the Labour Party, the Conservative party, the Liberal party and our colleagues in local government share that priority, which is a huge one for the people of Scotland.

Wendy Alexander's elaborate remarks on the leadership contest surely just prove that SNP members spent less on fighting elections than Wendy Alexander managed to spend on not fighting one.

I asked the First Minister to reconsider why not one of the 45 national targets in the concordat with local government deals with domestic abuse. I turn to one specific outcome of that. The First Minister will be aware that the supporting people grant is to be rolled up into the local government settlement. The grant currently provides £7 million a year to support 3,529 women and their children who are fleeing domestic violence. All that money is now up for grabs. What reassurances will the First Minister offer the 3,000 plus women who are fleeing domestic violence that that lifeline will not be curtailed? Does he appreciate the pressure that he will put on women's organisations by making them negotiate with 32 local authorities to try to hold on to that £21 million in the next three years to support those 3,000 victims of violence?

Wendy Alexander should have a look at page 46 of the Scottish budget and spending review document. One of the shared objectives for the outcome agreements that will be negotiated with local authorities is to improve

"the life chances for children, young people and families at risk".

Wendy Alexander asks about what is, or should be, an agreed priority for every member of the Parliament. I suggest to her that there is a culture change in the relationship between central and local government in Scotland. The days of top-down diktats are over. Instead, we have a new relationship that is based on a shared understanding of the priorities of the people of Scotland. One of those shared priorities, as in the outcome agreements and the Scottish budget documents, is the huge priority to protect people in Scotland from domestic abuse. Can Wendy Alexander not concede that local authority councillors the length and breadth of Scotland and from all political parties share that objective with members of our national Parliament?

I appreciate the desire for a change of culture. I simply draw the First Minister's attention to the key recommendation in the UK report I mentioned that was published earlier this week, which said that Scotland is in the lead. The report said that the single greatest priority is consistent national coverage and spending.

The First Minister will be aware of the success of the Glasgow domestic abuse court and its use of dedicated sheriffs and specialist support for women. The justice minister recently declined all requests to roll out that successful model elsewhere in Scotland. Will the First Minister at least think again about the case for creating specialist domestic abuse courts in Scotland's major centres, so that there is one in each of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee and Inverness?

We are expanding the position in Glasgow. Can Wendy Alexander not now appreciate that part of the new relationship that she accepts is happening in Scotland is that objectives such as that on the reduction of Scotland's still dreadful statistics on domestic violence—which Wendy Alexander will remember have been rising—are shared throughout the Parliament, local authorities and our judicial system?

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-305)

I have no plans to do so immediately. However, it is likely that the Prime Minister and I will meet at the British-Irish Council in Dublin early in the new year.

The First Minister will have read with concern the Audit Scotland report on overseas staff in the national health service, which was ordered after the Glasgow terrorist attack. It revealed that background criminal checks on overseas workers in the NHS in Scotland are not routinely carried out.

Alarmingly, this is not just about the NHS or terrorism. It is a much wider issue: the suitability of every individual seeking to work with children or other vulnerable groups in Scotland. There is a robust system for UK applicants through Disclosure Scotland, but there is no such system for overseas applicants. Indeed, in a written answer on foreign workers, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said:

"It is the responsibility of the person concerned to provide information from her or his home country if that is sought by an employer."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 26 September 2007; S3W-4302.]

Does the First Minister really think that that is robust enough? Is that good enough?

No, which is why we have issued revised guidelines. We should remember that, although the Audit Scotland report identified some issues that must be addressed, it found 97 per cent compliance with the variety of safety checks that are made.

The issues that the report raised are exactly why the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing issued revised guidelines earlier this week.

I listened to what the First Minister said, but I am pointing out to him that the issue is wider than the health service.

Let us consider the facts: we should not be relying on self-declarations that might not even be asked for; there is no robust or comprehensive system for bodies in Scotland to run criminal checks with other countries; Disclosure Scotland currently has no jurisdiction to obtain criminal records from other countries; and even within the European Union a possible solution is at least three years away.

In short, the robust procedures that exist for any UK citizen applying to work with vulnerable groups in Scotland do not exist for applicants from outwith the UK. Surely the body responsible for vetting the criminal background of any UK applicant seeking to work with children or vulnerable groups in Scotland—Disclosure Scotland—should also be responsible for vetting the criminal background of all such applicants. Does the First Minister agree?

I should have indicated to Annabel Goldie that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing announced earlier this week her intention to issue revised guidelines.

The cabinet secretary has dealt with the obligation on the NHS suitably to vet people working in the health services. On the wider issue, Annabel Goldie makes a number of interesting points that I will consider and write to her about. They touch on other responsibilities, particularly UK responsibilities for immigration and the statistics available to public bodies in Scotland, but nonetheless she has identified an area that we will look at and write to her about.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-306)

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

On 26 October, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning announced £100 million of capital money for further and higher education to be spent in this financial year. On 14 November, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth published the budget, which showed £100 million of capital money for further and higher education to be spent in this financial year. Yesterday, the Parliament voted that the £100 million should be spent this year. Why, then, last Thursday did the First Minister's staff distribute a table to journalists that showed not a single penny of that £100 million allocated to this financial year? Was that deliberately misleading or just a mistake?

Nicol Stephen should have reminded members that the acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, Mr Tavish Scott, seemed to do his level best to stop the Parliament allocating that £100 million to colleges and universities.

Colleges and universities have widely welcomed the capital allocation that the Government has contributed and which would not have been available to them if the previous Government had stayed in office. Perhaps Nicol Stephen will consider two points. First, I doubt whether every one of the tremendous new facilities that will be available as a result of that £100 million capital allocation will be absolutely complete by 31 March next year. Secondly, if that money had not been allocated—if we had listened to Tavish Scott—where on earth does Nicol Stephen believe that universities and colleges would have secured the capital funding to invest in those new facilities?

The First Minister has missed the point. The question is about much more than the details of Government budgets; it is about standards in government. Ministers are supposed to give accurate information and to require civil servants to give accurate information, yet the First Minister has got one set of civil servants to publish documents that show £100 million for colleges and universities this year and another set to produce figures that show not a single penny this year. Yesterday, Mr Swinney told us that those figures had been "smoothed". Why has the First Minister made speech after speech using those smoothed figures from that doctored table?

The First Minister says that universities have a bigger slice of the cake, but the truth is that they will have less. Universities came to the Parliament yesterday and said that they could not make the numbers add up to those of the First Minister, no matter how they tried. Will he call a halt to doctored tables? Will he enforce higher standards in government? Will he stop issuing documents that deliberately seek to mislead?

Let us be—[Interruption.]

Order.

Let us be absolutely accurate. Between 2004-05 and 2007-08, the baseline for higher education institutions represented 3.13 per cent of the Scottish Government's total managed expenditure—Nicol Stephen will remember that, because he was the Deputy First Minister. Under the plans that the SNP has announced, between 2008-09 and 2010-11, the baseline will represent 3.14 per cent. Even the Liberal Democrats should realise that that is an increase in the share of public spending that is devoted to our colleges and universities throughout Scotland.

Nicol Stephen argues that we should get a grip of the statistics. He should get a grip of Mr Tavish Scott. If we had followed the advice of the acting leader of the Liberal Democrat party, not only would colleges and universities have lost £100 million of additional investment, but pensions in the health service, the education system and the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges would have been put at risk.

On behalf of pleural plaques sufferers in my constituency and throughout Scotland, I welcome Kenny MacAskill's announcement today that a bill will be introduced to reverse the House of Lords judgment on pleural plaques. I ask the First Minister to join me in congratulating campaigners from Clydebank, Glasgow and Tayside who have pressed their case effectively. Does he agree that that is an example of how the Parliament should work on behalf of disadvantaged individuals and communities? Will he give us more details about the bill and the timescale for its passage through Parliament?

I share the sentiments that Des McNulty expressed. The Parliament should acknowledge that many of the campaigners are present in the public gallery and I am sure that all members want to congratulate them on their efforts. [Applause.]

We will introduce the proposed legal changes as quickly as possible. I know of Des McNulty's interest in the issue. The bill will return the law to the position that was understood before the recent House of Lords judgment. There are questions about the liabilities of United Kingdom departments. I stress that their liabilities will be exactly those that they would have expected to have before the House of Lords judgment was issued. I expect not only UK and Scottish Government departments, but Scottish society and the private sector, to meet their full obligations when the Parliament changes the law in the interests of justice for the Scottish people.

The First Minister will be aware of the outcome of the fishing discussions between the European Union and Norway earlier in the month, which were vital to fishermen in Shetland. The cod quota has been increased by a welcome 11 per cent, but the haddock quota has gone down by 15 per cent and the whiting quota by 25 per cent. With respect to pelagic stocks, the mackerel quota has been cut by 9 per cent and the herring quota by a swingeing 41 per cent.

Does the First Minster agree with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which described the outcome of the discussions as a "mixed bag"? How much time will our fishermen get to catch the fish that they will be allowed to land? Will the First Minister outline the action that his Government will take to head off the European Commission's plans to cut by 25 per cent the number of days at sea for white-fish boats?

We will strongly resist the Commission's proposals. I point out to Tavish Scott as a fellow fishing community representative that a "mixed bag" is the best description that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has been able to offer in respect of any of the European fisheries negotiations outcomes over the past 10 years.

The increased cod quota is vital. It is the first increase in the past decade and I hope that it represents a turn of the tide as far as that vital species is concerned. Tavish Scott rightly draws attention to the decline in other key quotas, but he should remember that the previously large increases in the haddock quota are likely to mean that there will be no decrease in the effective take-up of haddock.

I hope and believe that, as a result of strong and continuing argument from the cabinet secretary with responsibility for agriculture and fisheries and his deployment of representations and contacts with industry, although we may not have the ideal outcome for our vital fishing industry at the end of this year, we will have the best outcome for the past decade.

Does the Government see NHS Western Isles continuing to be a statutory national health service authority that is independent of any other equivalent authority elsewhere in Scotland?

There are no plans for merging Western Isles NHS Board with any other authority. There have been continuing difficulties, which the previous Government addressed and that the Scottish National Party Government has continued to address. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will visit the authority in the next week or two in order to take forward improvements for the people of the Western Isles.

---

Nuclear Power

To ask the First Minister what input the Scottish Government will have to the United Kingdom Government's consultation on the future of nuclear power. (S3F-322)

The Scottish Government responded to the UK Government's consultation on the future of nuclear power on 9 October 2007. Copies of its response are available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. In it, we made clear our opposition to new nuclear power stations in Scotland and stated that we do not believe that there is an energy gap that only nuclear power can fill. We also reiterated that, under devolved powers, any application to build a new nuclear power station in Scotland would require consent from the Scottish ministers under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, and not the consent of the UK Government.

On Monday, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, told the Confederation of British Industry that

"new nuclear power stations potentially have a role to play in tackling climate change and improving energy security."

Does the First Minister agree that what Greenpeace has called the Prime Minister's "obsession" with nuclear power displays an astonishing lack of commitment to renewable energy, which has enormous potential in Scotland? Will he confirm that the Scottish Government has an on-going commitment to investment in renewables and will he confirm its opposition to a new generation of nuclear power stations? Does he agree that the greenest Scotland is a nuclear-free Scotland and that a greener Scotland is far preferable to a Browner Britain?

I certainly think that minority government in Scotland is proving to be considerably easier than majority government at Westminster. However, rather than talk about the Prime Minister's views on the future energy configuration south of the border, let us talk about the Government in Scotland's commitment. We have increased our target for renewable generation in Scotland. The new target is to provide 50 per cent of Scottish energy demand by renewable generation by 2020, with an interim milestone of 31 per cent by 2011. That is equivalent to 5,000MW of installed capacity—twice as much as we had on green energy day a mere two months ago. When we launched green energy day, which was the day on which the installed capacity of alternative renewable sources in Scotland overtook the installed capacity of nuclear power, people pointed to the fact that the utilisation ratio—for example, in wind power—can be around 50 per cent or even sometimes less. I point out to Jamie Hepburn that the utilisation ratio of Hunterston B nuclear power station for much of this year has been zero, because the power station has not been in production.

---

Route Development Fund

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that the route development fund has assisted the growth of tourism in Scotland. (S3F-315)

Yes. The growth of direct flights has made Scotland more accessible and has helped to increase the number of visitors from outside Scotland over the past few years.

I am pleased to hear that. The First Minister will recognise that there are further opportunities to attract visitors to Scotland from around the world with the year of homecoming, the Commonwealth games, the Ryder cup and the promotion of Aberdeen city and shire as a world-class golfing destination. Does he accept that this is the wrong time to be winding up the route development fund with no alternative scheme in place, and will he now listen to the views of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the British Hospitality Association and many others, and put in place a new destination marketing scheme to work alongside the efforts of airports and airlines in supporting further new direct flights to Scotland?

Lewis Macdonald was previously a deputy minister for transport, so I know that he will be aware—for the sake of completeness—that the previous Government failed in its attempt to win from the European Commission a further derogation from the new guidelines on route development that have been introduced. That is hugely important for the Scottish economy, because the revised guidelines are very restrictive and limit the assistance that can be provided to airlines. Our analysis shows that any scheme that complied with the new guidelines would not lead to a significant increase in international connections. You cannot, for example, support destination airports that have over 5 million passengers, and you cannot assist new routes outwith the European Union or non-EU carriers. We are considering alternatives, including a marketing-based initiative. We do not believe that that would be effective in further developing international air services, but VisitScotland will continue its own marketing efforts with airlines, which are aimed at increasing the number of overseas visitors coming to Scotland. Another important evaluation exercise is taking place at present, which is to specify how much additional benefit has been brought to the Scottish economy by the route development fund when we were in a position, under European law, to apply it.

---

Affordable Housing

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will meet the future affordable housing needs of Scotland. (S3F-313)

Our discussion document "Firm Foundations—the Future of Housing in Scotland" sets out how the Scottish Government proposes to address Scotland's affordable housing needs. In particular, we shall encourage the building of more good quality, sustainable homes across all tenures to meet aspirations and tackle homelessness.

The First Minister will be aware that Shelter Scotland estimated that the budget settlement for housing will result in only 15,700 affordable homes for rent, which is fewer than the output of 16,500 for the comprehensive spending review period of 2005 to 2008 that the previous Liberal Democrat and Labour Government set, and far short of the 30,000 homes that housing stakeholders asked for in the election. Does the First Minister agree with his deputy, who said in the chamber on 31 October that the current rate of house building is "simply inadequate"? If he does, why has the Government chosen to deliver fewer houses—affordable homes—on what is an increased budget from that of the previous Administration?

The housing crisis that we have inherited in Scotland is largely the result of eight years of total inactivity between the Labour and Liberal parties in government. Spending on affordable housing in 2008 to 2011 as a whole will be over £1.5 billion—up 19 per cent compared to the planned budget set for 2005 to 2008. That is a substantial increase in what has been a very tight spending review settlement. Once receipts are netted off, the 2010-11 budget is 23.5 per cent higher than this year's budget, which was set by the previous Administration. In those circumstances, even within the parameters of the tight budget that has been dictated by Westminster, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing is entirely confident that we will manage to increase the number of affordable homes that are built in Scotland.

We started slightly late, so I will allow a final question from Johann Lamont.

Will the First Minister confirm that his affordable housing policy has no target whatsoever for the building of social rented housing? If there is a target, perhaps he will be willing to share it with us. Does he acknowledge that there are concerns about meeting the housing needs of vulnerable people whose needs go far beyond simply bricks and mortar? Will he instruct his minister to meet the housing organisations that are expressing grave concern about the matter with the same urgency with which his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning met the university sector?

I point out that our target of 35,000 for new build across Scotland is across all tenures including social housing. I wish that Johann Lamont had shown as much concern for the social housing needs of Scotland when she and her colleagues were in government during the past eight years. [Interruption.]

Order.

Perhaps she was arguing for the policy within that Government. I have no knowledge of that. However, does she not think it possible that stopping the right to buy new council houses in Scotland—[Interruption.]

Order.

—will lead to a substantial increase in that sector, compared with the virtually zero position left by the Labour Party?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During her questions to the First Minister, Wendy Alexander said that she had checked with the Electoral Commission and found that I did not spend any money in the SNP leadership contest in 2004. The reason for that is that I was not a candidate for the leadership in 2004. [Interruption.]

Order.

For the record, I publicly backed Mr Salmond. I have no doubt that that was a major factor contributing to his success.

That is not a point of order, but it is now on the record.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr Neil is, of course, right. The candidate was Mike Russell. Perhaps we might be forgiven on two counts. First, it is so difficult to tell Mr Neil and Mr Russell apart as they sit together right on the shoulder of the First Minister. Secondly, everyone in the chamber knows that Alex Neil has pretensions to the throne.

However, the key point, Presiding Officer—

Do you have a point of order, Ms Baillie?

Indeed I do. The SNP needs to confirm that, in a three-month election leadership campaign, every candidate was entirely self funded—

This is not a point of order for me, Ms Baillie.

—and that each of those candidates, including Mike Russell—

This is not a point of order for me. I ask you to close.

—received no donations and no support—

That brings us to the end of First Minister's question time.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—