Plenary, 31 Jan 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Official Report 815KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-469)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Those will include joining the consul general for India in the celebrations of India's independence. I am sure that the whole Parliament will want to acknowledge and celebrate the independence of the world's largest democracy.

I think that we could join the First Minister in wishing India well.

How long are Scotland's pensioners currently waiting for installation of their free central heating systems?

What I know about free central heating installation is that the action that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has taken to repair some of the deficiencies in the scheme that we inherited from the Labour and Liberal parties has resulted in a substantial improvement, but nobody is pretending that the scheme is working effectively. We inherited a scheme, the terms of which had been set and the practitioners in which had been established by the previous Government. Increasingly, we are finding that almost nothing that we inherited from the previous Government works effectively.

That answer will be cold comfort to Scotland's pensioners, because what they care about is results. In May, Scottish pensioners were waiting, on average, 114 days to get a new system. They are now waiting 229 days on average—almost eight months—so in many cases the wait is much longer. Does the First Minister think that it is acceptable that the waiting time for pensioners to have their heating systems replaced has doubled under his stewardship?

We do not think that the scheme that we inherited is acceptable, which is why we have introduced 1,500 extra installations over the course of the winter. That will result in a record 15,000 installations in the course of the financial year. That seems to me to be effective action to tackle a problem that we inherited from Wendy Alexander's colleagues.

This is about the track record of this Government. It is nothing to boast of that the First Minister's Government has doubled the average wait for pensioners. When the Scottish National Party came to power, barely a thousand pensioners were waiting more than three months for their free central heating systems. Today, the figure is more than 6,500. The reality for those pensioners is that they now have to choose either to freeze or to pay up themselves. That is unacceptable. What will the First Minister do about it?

We inherited from the previous Administration plans and a budget to install 13,500 systems in the course of this financial year. Because we recognised that the figure was inadequate, we have increased it by 1,500. Nobody is pretending that the scheme is perfect in any respect. How could it be when it was devised by the Labour and Liberal parties? If the previous Administration thought that 13,500 installations was adequate, why does Wendy Alexander not acknowledge and welcome the increase to 15,000 under this Administration?

The SNP's contribution to the central heating scheme since May has been that the waiting lists are getting longer, the average waiting time has doubled and the installation rate is down.

Let me turn to the promised 15,000 systems by April. The First Minister will be aware that the latest figures show that his Government had managed barely 8,000 of those by the end of December. We seem to be on track for another broken promise. It is a strange kind of improvement in which waiting lists are twice as long and are getting longer, the installation rate is down and the 15,000 systems are not going to be delivered.

Look at the weather around the country. There will be pensioners who applied in November who will be freezing in February and who will still be waiting in June. Is the First Minister now willing to apologise to those pensioners who will be freezing in February because of his failure?

Wendy Alexander should be apologising generally to Scotland for the legacy that we inherited from the Labour and Liberal parties.

What is certain is that installations will reach a record number in this financial year. Therefore, by definition, fewer people will be waiting than would have been the case if the Labour and Liberal parties were still in power. Of course, people are worried and concerned about heating costs throughout Scotland because of rising fuel bills. They will also be concerned that Scotland receives no benefit from the vast escalation of revenues that are flooding into the Westminster Exchequer.

I am delighted that Wendy Alexander recognises the impact of rising energy costs and, I hope, of rising transport costs. Perhaps she will join us in demanding that Scotland get some benefit from its own natural resources, so that we can fund the schemes and not have fuel poverty amid energy plenty.

Finally, I point out to Wendy Alexander that statistics that were published today indicate a 20 per cent rise in public confidence in, and satisfaction with, the governance of Scotland. How on earth does she explain that fantastic rise in people's confidence in the Government? I join colleagues in saying that I have full confidence in her continuing leadership of the Labour Party in Scotland.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-470)

I met the secretary of state last Friday to discuss the implementation of the recommendations of the Gould report. I think it only fair to report to the Parliament that I did not find the secretary of state as enthusiastic as the Scottish Parliament about the idea of this Parliament having control over its own electoral system.

On such a dreich day, it may be uplifting to talk about a blaze—the blaze of quangos to which the First Minister referred yesterday. Admittedly, his blaze was a bit of an overstatement. In fact, it was variously described in the newspapers as a "barbecue" a "campfire" and a "vanity of the bonfires". The reality is that, in playing to his party gallery in Aviemore last year, the First Minister plucked from the air the arbitrary figure of 25 per cent. I presume that, since then, he has had his officials scurrying around, valiantly trying to meet his whim. The result? It is nothing more than renaming, rebadging, mergers and amalgamations—not real cuts.

Despite, I am sure, the best briefing, the First Minister hid behind his fig leaf of an alleged 26 per cent cut in the number of quangos and refused to answer the real question, so I will ask it again. Let us take as read all his fulsome generalisations, evasions and spin of yesterday and cut to the chase. Will his blaze reduce the number of persons who are employed and the cost to the taxpayer by more than or less than 26 per cent?

It certainly will not reduce the number of people who are employed in those organisations by 26 per cent. As I explained to Annabel Goldie yesterday, we are implementing a policy of no compulsory redundancies and many of the functions that have been identified are key functions that remain part of Scottish governance. The question is whether we should pursue those functions through the existing 199 national public bodies in Scotland or do as we have done and cut the number of those bodies to 120, perhaps with further cuts to come.

Our argument for efficiency in governance rests on the performance of the Government and the meeting of a 2 per cent efficiency target year on year during the next three years. It also relies on the argument that simplification of the process of government will result in vast savings to the rest of Scottish society. The private sector might generate as much as £800 million if we assume a 1 per cent efficiency saving as the result of more effective governance in Scotland.

Many quangos and national public organisations were set up by the Labour Government, but many were also set up in Scotland by previous Conservative Administrations. Given the direction in which Annabel Goldie wants to travel, I would have thought that she would have joined us in welcoming the substantial reduction in the complexity of Government, and the substantial cut in the number of agencies and quangos across Scotland.

I will happily compare the number of quangos and all the other appendages of state that we have now with what we had when the Conservatives were in government.

I listened to the First Minister's response. My argument is about fairness and transparency for the taxpayer. The whole exercise will have very little significance unless we have some feel for, or indication of, whether the cuts will mean reducing staff numbers and costs to the taxpayer.

At least some light has been shed on the situation: we now know that there will be no more than a 26 per cent reduction in either of the components to which I referred. So, let us try and shed more light on the situation. I will be generous to the First Minister by saying that if he cannot give me a specific answer, can he give me a ballpark figure? Is it some per cent or no per cent? Surely he can answer that one.

I will be very specific. We have identified the argument for taking Communities Scotland into the Government instead of leaving it as an agency. That alone will generate efficiency savings of £1.7 million. As we go through the process of simplification of government, we will achieve substantial savings and efficiencies for the Government and for Scottish society as a whole.

I know that the Opposition's leaders have to criticise everything and all things; I well understand that that is their role. However, looking again at the figures for satisfaction with, and trust in, the governance of Scotland, I find out that not only do 71 per cent of people trust the governance of Scotland—a record number—but 4 per cent do not trust the Government of Scotland on any occasion. I suspect that Annabel Goldie might be one of the 4 per cent, but I hope that she will soon join the 71 per cent.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-471)

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

Yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon announced that all health boards were meeting their 18-week waiting target. Under the First Minister's Government, have any patients who still need treatment been deliberately removed from those waiting lists in order for the health boards to meet their target?

The purpose of the Government's and the SNP's direction of travel is to remove the hidden waiting lists that were so much a feature of the Government of which Nicol Stephen was such a prominent member. I would have thought that it is cause for celebration that we were able to announce this week that every health authority in Scotland was able to meet its target at the end of the year. Surely that is something on which Nicol Stephen could join the 71 per cent who are satisfied and not stay with the 4 per cent who are dissatisfied.

Why then did a patient recently receive the following letter from her consultant? It says:

"I am afraid I am writing to inform you of some bad news. I have been instructed by hospital management to remove your name from my waiting list. The prime reason for this decision relates to the 18-week target for patient treatment which is now enforced. I currently have a significant number of patients in breach of this, and the simple solution by management is to reduce my waiting list by removing patients' names."

It is shocking and scandalous to discover a situation in which the First Minister's targets are achieved by dumping patients off the list. Will the First Minister promise to end such manipulation of the figures and ensure that patients who have been devastated by letters such as the one from which I read will now receive treatment from his Government?

I will be delighted to look at the individual circumstances of that letter and am delighted to reaffirm that this Government will not have the manipulation of waiting lists that was carried out by the previous Administration. As First Minister, I will be delighted—as will the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing—to look at those circumstances and to deal with anything that might have been wrongly done in that patient's case. Nicol Stephen seems, however, to have a spot of amnesia: let us remember that the 18-week target was introduced two years ago by the previous Administration.

Of course, we sent details of the case to the health secretary, but should not the First Minister spend a little less time frothing about all that and a little more time regretting the situation and taking urgent action to assist such patients?

Urgent action is being taken across the health service, which is why the targets were met at the end of last year.

When did Nicol Stephen send the information to the health secretary? We are delighted to pursue actively queries from individual MSPs, including Nicol Stephen, who are representing their constituents. If he supplies us with the details, we will take the effective action that this Government is known for and which his Government notably failed to take.

I will take a supplementary question from Sarah Boyack.

I welcome the First Minister's comment at the weekend that he will do all he can to safeguard the jobs of the 1,000 highly skilled Scottish & Newcastle plc staff in Edinburgh and the Lothians. Will he do everything he can to ensure that the positions of the many other staff in the city who depend on work with Scottish & Newcastle, such as those who work in our marketing agencies and our legal and accountancy firms, are also considered by the Scottish Government? Will he join me in calling on the potential new owners of Scottish & Newcastle to be aware of the significant support that the firm has offered to the development of the city's culture, as well as its economy, through the provision of long-standing financial support for organisations such as the national museum of Scotland, the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, and the Edinburgh international festival, which has been an important part of the company's reputation and its relationship with the capital?

Yes—a meeting has been offered and agreed with the potential new owners of Scottish & Newcastle to discuss whether we can make progress on those very points.

As soon as the situation developed, the Government set up a task force involving Jim Mather, the industry minister. It is important that we do that. Our initial analysis, which is supported by industry commentators, suggests that the substantial majority of jobs in Scotland look to be secure under the new circumstances. However, there is a serious question about the continuing functions of the group headquarters in Edinburgh, where about 100 staff are employed. Those highly skilled jobs are very important not just to Edinburgh, but to Scotland as a whole. When we pursue our discussions with the potential new owners of Scottish & Newcastle, the security of that workforce and the importance of retaining as many of its skills as possible in Scotland and the Scottish economy will be uppermost in our minds.

---

Climate Change

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that Scotland plays its part in tackling climate change. (S3F-487)

Earlier this week we launched a consultation on our proposed Scottish climate change bill. That is part of a key pledge in our manifesto to introduce a bill that will bind this and future Governments to reducing Scotland's emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. That is a hugely ambitious target, but climate change is a huge problem, not just for Scotland, but for the world as a whole.

What steps will the Government be taking to ensure that we capitalise on the huge potential that the north-east has to contribute to Scotland's carbon reduction targets?

We have raised the target for the proportion of electricity to be generated in Scotland from renewable sources to 50 per cent by 2020. We are making excellent progress towards meeting that target. Only last week, we sanctioned the development of a new wind farm development in Aberdeenshire. In total, the Government has sanctioned the development of seven new energy projects in Scotland in the past nine months, which is double the rate of approvals under the previous Administration. That is one reason why we are so confident that the Government will see Scotland achieving its full potential in energy resources.

The one black spot in the past few months was the Westminster Government's decision to delay development of the world-leading and potentially planet-saving pre-combustion Peterhead project, which has resulted in the project moving from the north-east of Scotland to Abu Dhabi. Would that we in Scotland had the power to ensure that we make best use of world-leading and potentially planet-saving technology that should be developed in this country.

The First Minister will be aware that the main measure to mitigate climate change is renewable energy, as he said. Does he share my enthusiasm for the proposal in the recent Crown Estate study to develop an offshore east coast transmission line to allow renewable energy to be distributed around and across the UK? Will Mr Salmond support the project, in the knowledge that it will provide ministers, in approving wind farm developments in island communities, with assured transmission capacity to meet climate change targets?

I approve of the Crown Estate's project. The energy division of the Scottish Government has worked on and supported such ideas, including through meetings with the European Commissioner for Energy that I have mentioned to Parliament previously.

The issue is important because there are two strategic problems that we must overcome to develop Scotland's full energy potential. First, we must reduce and then, I hope, eliminate discrimination in the charging regime for getting Scottish energy on to the grid. Grid access charges are discriminatory and unfair to Scotland. We are pursuing action to mitigate that unfairness, which is a drag on our energy potential.

The second problem is the one that David Stewart mentioned. Scotland has enormous energy potential. On electricity generation alone, we have the capacity to generate many times our own needs. One key factor is how we transport that electricity to areas of energy demand that are more energy poor than Scotland—not just south of the border, but also in continental Europe. The Crown Estate Commission's excellent study progresses what will be one of the key elements in developing Scotland's full energy potential—the idea of seaborne transmission, sometimes known as the supergrid.

I am sure that the First Minister will want to acknowledge the excellent work on the environment and climate change that is done by the Scottish Crop Research Institute and the Macaulay Institute in the north-east region. Given the uncertainty that was created by his comments yesterday, what assurances can he give that the funding that allows the unique approach to tackling climate change at the Macaulay Institute, which harnesses a mix of environmental and social sciences to a strong understanding of the role of communities in bringing about change, will not become conditional on the two institutes merging?

The merger of the two institutes has been welcomed by the institutes and just about everyone else apart from Mike Rumbles. It is an important measure that will provide critical mass for the vital research that the two institutes, which are public bodies, pursue. I should have thought that Alison McInnes would join the Government—and informed opinion across the science sector—in welcoming a substantial move that will enhance and improve not just the position of the two institutes, but Scotland's ability to contribute to the vital research to which I referred.

I welcome the consultation that was published this week, especially the fact that it does not close off the possibility that, ultimately, targets will need to be higher than the 80 per cent reduction in emissions that the Government currently proposes. The work of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, for example, indicates that higher targets will be urgently needed.

I ask why the document has nothing to say on sector-by-sector targets. Does the First Minister agree, for example, that if road and aviation traffic levels continue to grow at current rates, it will be impossible to meet even an 80 per cent target?

It is important that we tackle such matters in the round and maintain that binding 80 per cent target, which Patrick Harvie is correct to say is hugely ambitious. Increasingly, people are recognising internationally that action that was suggested by Governments previously is not adequate to deal with the problem. We in Scotland should also acknowledge occasionally that, although the potential is great, so too are the ambition and targets that we propose, which are significant international targets. I discussed that point yesterday with the European commissioner, who very much approves of the Scottish Government's approach and targets, both for regeneration and renewable energy in general, and the 80 per cent target in the proposed climate change bill.

---

Universities Concordat

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's proposals to establish a concordat with universities will mean for higher education in Scotland. (S3F-480)

Our universities compete efficiently with the best in the world and we are determined that that should continue. That means thinking boldly and imaginatively with the sector about how we address the challenges of our fast-changing world. The joint future thinking task force on universities gives us the means to do that and I anticipate that a concordat model will be one among a number of ideas that the task force will discuss.

Will not the aspirations of the concordat require funding? The additional funding of £10 million that has been announced by the media will leave universities £10 million short in meeting pay agreements alone, which will open a gap between them and institutions south of the border. No concordat can make up for the Scottish Government's hand-to-mouth funding for such drivers of our economy. Rather than the current task force, surely a full independent review of higher education funding must now be called.

Of course, it was the universities themselves that approved the task force and its ability to reach quick conclusions as opposed to having a review that could have extended over some considerable time.

I do not have to remind Richard Baker of the £100 million of additional capital investment that the Government injected this year into our college and university sector; I do not have to remind him that over the course of the comprehensive spending review investment in the higher education sector is increasing in real terms; and I am sure that he wants to welcome the additional £10 million that was so widely welcomed throughout the universities sector over the past week.

Richard Baker has been known to be far-seeing for many years. I particularly liked it when he said:

"We are very hopeful that fees will be scrapped."

Unfortunately, he did not say that as an MSP; he said it as a student leader on 11 September 1999.

Can I point out to—[Interruption.]

Order.

I point out to the First Minister that, after 10 years of Labour Governments in London and Edinburgh, the chances of a young person from a poor background in Scotland getting to university are no higher today than they were 10 years ago. I ask the First Minister whether the concordat will address Labour's miserable record on that issue.

Yes, indeed. Access to universities and colleges is one of this Government's key approaches to allowing working-class Scots to have their birthright of access to an education system that is free in the Scottish tradition, as opposed to having tuition fees in the Labour and Liberal tradition.

I welcome the proposal in the concordat to give universities greater freedom, not least because we first read about it in last May's Scottish Conservative manifesto. Does the First Minister acknowledge the key concerns about the funding of our universities, not just today, but from 2010 onwards in particular? That makes the case precisely for why we should have an independently chaired review of university funding to address all such issues and ensure that our institutions do not lose their competitive edge.

I suppose that, for Murdo Fraser, one of the great aspects of giving the university sector more independence—which is part of the concordat that it has so enthusiastically embraced—is that we pay attention to what it says. Given that our universities have welcomed the task force and rejected his commission report, I wonder whether Mr Fraser will follow his own logic, recognise the sector's independence, acknowledge the value of its advice and, like the Government, accept it.

---

National Health Service (Fraud)

To ask the First Minister what the known extent is of fraud in the national health service. (S3F-473)

It is estimated that up to 1 per cent of the NHS budget could be lost to fraud each year. Annual losses might be between £50 million and £100 million.

First, I thank Alex Neil for reminding us how much better life was for students under the Tories.

Given the fact that an estimated £100 million is filtered out of the NHS each year by fraud, is the First Minister concerned that only 135 charges have been reported to the procurator fiscal, with a paltry three convictions?

I agree that any fraud against the NHS is unacceptable. Last Monday we launched a new zero-tolerance initiative to tackle the growing problem, over which I am sure Parliament will unite in effective action. That initiative is only part of the reason why there has been a 20 per cent surge in confidence and trust in the governance of Scotland since this Administration took office.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—