Plenary, 17 Jan 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, January 17, 2008

Official Report 742KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-427)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Before coming to my substantive question, I begin by offering the First Minister the opportunity to comment to Parliament on the way in which his Government handled the sackings of Julia Bracewell and Dougie Donnelly this week.

Will the First Minister also tell us why his Government is delaying new youth courts in Dundee, Kilmarnock and Paisley when the evaluation of an existing youth court concluded:

"With its fast track procedures and additional resources it was regarded as a model to be aspired to in all summary court business"?

Youth courts have a proven record in taking young people causing chaos in our communities off the streets within a few days. Why is the First Minister denying the same protection to other communities across Scotland?

As Wendy Alexander might remember, the previous Executive decided that there should be a review of the youth courts system, which I think has broad support and certainly has plenty of anecdotal evidence in its favour. The position was to be reviewed in spring next year in the light of the impact of the summary justice reforms. It is entirely sensible to follow that approach and then to consider the roll-out of further youth courts in the light of that review.

On her first question, given that we are establishing one body in charge of developing sport in Scotland, with one board and one chair, it is entirely understandable that the chairs of the two current bodies should stand down so that a new chair can be appointed.

The previous Executive decided to open three more youth courts. There were no ifs or buts from Scottish National Party members when they saw the results of youth courts. Mr Kenny Gibson wanted a youth court in Ayrshire and Ms Sandra White wanted one in Glasgow. They were supported by 15 of the First Minister's colleagues, including Mr Neil, Ms Cunningham and two members who are now ministers—Mr Maxwell and Mr Mather. Have they all changed their minds overnight?

Youth courts are not the only issue on which there are concerns about the SNP failing to protect the public. This week, the SNP opposed an amendment to the budget to guarantee an additional 1,000 police officers on Scotland's streets. This week, Grampian Police also had to plunder its budget to meet the looming crisis in police pensions. What assurances will the First Minister offer to communities across Scotland that they will not lose police from their streets in order to fund the pensions shortfall?

Given that at the election Wendy Alexander's party proposed no extra police officers in Scotland, I suppose that we should welcome that substantial conversion. I point the member to the Audit Scotland report that was published last year, which argued that the Government needed

"to develop an understanding of the cost-effectiveness of different service interventions to address the offending behaviour of young people".

Although the report was published in the autumn, Audit Scotland was reviewing the progress of the previous Executive.

It is entirely sensible for us to review the position, as was intended, in the spring of 2009, in the light of the summary justice reforms that have been introduced, so that roll-out of youth courts—which enjoy broad support—across the country can be considered. We are following the precepts of Audit Scotland in that matter and conducting the review that was planned by the previous Executive.

We now know the cost-effectiveness that the Labour Party intends for the people of Scotland. From the Finance Committee, we know the budgets that Labour intended to cut in order to finance the things that Wendy Alexander talks about at First Minister's question time: we know that it wanted to cut spending on road safety; we know that it wanted to stop work on the M8, the M80 and the M74; and we know that it wanted to cut road gritting and clearing—the winter maintenance budget. I repeat: Labour wanted to cut the winter maintenance budget. We know that it also wanted to cut the budget of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and cut support for anti-terrorism measures. Given the list of cuts that the Labour Party took to the Finance Committee, is it surprising that it got the support of no other party in Parliament?

Let me deal with the two factual points that preceded that rant. Labour created not 500 or 1,000 new police officers, but 1,500, as the First Minister well knows. He also knows full well that Audit Scotland did not evaluate youth courts in its review of youth justice.

The country knows that the constitutional purpose of First Minister's question time is for the First Minister to account for his decisions and not simply to rant. Let me use it for the purpose for which it was intended.

A week ago, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice told Parliament that in Grampian an additional 230 police officers would be recruited by 2009. How does that square with the view of the convener of Grampian police authority, who said that

"money which should be spent on policing in the Grampian area will have to be spent on police pensions"?

The question is clear: will the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's guarantee on police numbers in Grampian be met or not?

Wendy Alexander should extend her reading. The latest information on Grampian police numbers is set out in an article of 9 January in The Press and Journal, which is headed "Boost to give north-east ‘record level' of officers". [Interruption.] I hear the comment that that is not what Martin Greig said. Unfortunately, the article goes on to say:

"Councillor Martin Greig last night welcomed the extra resources, which he said will see an additional 60 officers join the force during the next financial year".

Martin Greig continued:

"We are definitely moving in the right direction".

He also said:

"It is good to see we are well on course to reaching record levels of officers."

In the most recent article on the subject, Martin Greig said that Grampian is on track to have an unprecedented number of officers. Given that he is the very person whom Wendy Alexander mentioned, perhaps I should offer her a subscription to The Press and Journal of Aberdeen.

Ms Alexander, your final question.

The First Minister knows well that there has been a rise in police budgets, which we welcome. However, he also knows that police budgets all over Scotland are being plundered to deal with the pensions shortfall that is forecast.

Let me make this very simple for all of us. Will the First Minister undertake to publish the best estimates of the police pensions bill for the next three years, so that forces can plan ahead and deal with the pensions hole, which has been forecast to be as much as £50 million next year? Will he reassure communities throughout Scotland that he will publish that estimate and that the pensions crisis will not be paid for out of operational police budgets, or will he simply admit that when the rhetoric is put to one side, we will not have the reality of the numbers on the police pensions crisis?

The crisis that Wendy Alexander describes might have been developing over the past eight years while the Labour Party was in government. The figures that she asks for are already with the police boards and local authorities, and discussions are under way on how we can address the pensions issue, which has built up over a substantial period.

The difference between this Government and the previous Executive in addressing such issues lies in the historic concordat between local and national Government in Scotland. I see that a number of Labour group leaders have joined the ring-fence rebellion: David O'Neill of North Ayrshire, Kevin Keenan of Dundee, Jim McCabe of North Lanarkshire and Eddie McAvoy of South Lanarkshire. Given the support of local authorities for financial flexibility and the end of ring fencing, what did Wendy Alexander do to face down that rebellion? She gave an interview at the weekend, in which she said:

"Well, I think there should be a big reduction in ring-fencing … I am all in favour of local discretion … I think lots of the changes are a good idea … I do think we need to give people discretion to make the right decisions locally."

Wendy—welcome to the big tent against ring fencing.

A final question from Ms Alexander.

No!

Order. It is totally within order to offer a final question to Ms Alexander.

For the third time, I ask the First Minister whether he will publish the best estimates of the police pensions bill for the next three years. Yes or no?

If Wendy Alexander had not started on sportscotland, she would have had more opportunity to produce police numbers. We are in discussions with local authorities and police boards. Because of the new historic concordat and our new relationship with local authorities, we intend to deal with such difficult issues, as the previous Executive singularly failed to do.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-428)

I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland next week to discuss taking forward the recommendations of the Gould report. I shall do so armed with the substantial, overwhelming vote of the Parliament to support the further devolution of executive and legislative powers to the Government and the Parliament so that we can run and administer our own elections.

It is always good to see the First Minister supporting devolution in any form, so we welcome that.

I raise with the First Minister a subject dear to his heart: opinion polls, which are never dearer to him than when they are about him. In politics, we are all allowed our little bit of egocentric vanity. The opinion poll that I want to talk about was carried out by the Scottish National Party's favourite pollster, YouGov, and was reported this week in the Scottish Daily Express. I was tempted to refer to the poll finding of a record high support for devolution, but why talk about what the rest of us know already?

What intrigued me more about the poll was the compelling majority support—70 per cent of those who were questioned—for keeping in Scotland a mix of energy sources, including nuclear power. Last week, John Swinney said:

"Scotland does not want or need new nuclear power."

Will the First Minister admit that his favourite pollster got it right and that his favourite minister got it wrong?

I will certainly not make any attempt to rubbish the poll in general because, if I remember correctly, it showed a 9 per cent SNP lead across the country. However, even an excellent pollster with a great track record, such as YouGov, might benefit from putting the questions on nuclear power in a way that outlines the facts. I suspect that, if we asked, for example, whether the country wanted to waste billions of pounds going down a nuclear dead end—that is the truth—even Annabel Goldie would have difficulty answering yes to the question.

I am interested in that reply because, not for the first time, the First Minister ignores what Scotland wants. However, let us deal with his attempt to deal with what Scotland needs. It is not only the YouGov poll that gets it right. It is perfectly clear that, to provide a secure and affordable low-carbon base-load energy supply in Scotland, we need a mix of energy provision in which renewables and nuclear power are complementary. That fact is supported by an impressive array of independent experts. The bottom line for Scotland is that for more than half our energy production we rely on finite and diminishing fossil-fuel sources. Yes—let us grow our renewables, but let us not risk the lights going out in Scotland because of the blockheaded parochial dogma of one man and his party. Does the First Minister really want that to be his legacy?

I understand that the votes later on today will give us an indication of the Parliament's view on the nuclear option. Whatever Annabel Goldie says about it, she should not say that it is cheap. I am old enough—Annabel may also be old enough—to remember when it was said that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter. In fact, it has been by far the most expensive energy source over the past 40 years, with many huge problems still to be overcome.

Let us have a look at the facts on electricity generation in Scotland. As we know, the most recent figures—for 2006—show a dramatic reduction in the nuclear component because Hunterston B was mostly offline over the period, as it was again last year. The nuclear component fell from 38 per cent to 26 per cent of electricity production in Scotland in 2006. In that period, when the nuclear component was falling like a stone, Scottish exports of electricity to England increased by 50 per cent.

I saw much of this morning's debate on energy and I know that there are major doubts and divisions in the Labour Party on the issue, but I hope that, across the Parliament, we will all be able to rally round the reality that virtually no other country in Europe has the vast array of potentially cheap, renewable and low-carbon energy sources that Scotland has. The real task for our country is not to secure our electricity production, which we will and can do, but to find the economic means of exporting the substantial surplus of power to the energy-poor areas of Europe. That is what this Government has been addressing and, incidentally, it is why we should welcome the analysis of undersea pipelines for electricity connections that the Crown Estate has published today.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-429)

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

Last week, the First Minister's Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell, had to apologise to Parliament because of the mess that he is making of sports policy in Scotland. Why does he keep his job when Dougie Donnelly and Julia Bracewell lose theirs? Dougie Donnelly says that the First Minister's plans for sport are

"a ridiculous piece of political manoeuvring"

and that real damage could be done to our athletes' prospects at the Olympic and Commonwealth games. Who does the First Minister think the people of Scotland trust more on sport: Dougie Donnelly or Stewart Maxwell?

They will certainly not be trusting Nicol Stephen—that is for sure. As was illustrated in the debate and decision on sportscotland, two effective organisations were taken to create one organisation, with one board and, therefore, one chair. That decision was in line with our wish to deliver all policies effectively and—of course—to reduce the number of organisations and quangos in Scotland. Obviously, if we have two chairs becoming one chair, the previous chairs will be rather disappointed that there is only one job where there had been two. That is understandable.

What did the people who do not have such an immediate interest say about the situation? Experts in sport in Scotland responded to the announcement last week. Derek Casey, the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games bid director, described the decisions last week as a "win, win, win" situation for Scottish sport. Chris Robison, the policy director of the Scottish Sports Association said:

"As long as the SIS continues to deliver services to athletes, I don't think it matters to the majority of our members whether it is independent. I think decluttering is a good idea. And we are glad sportscotland has survived."

Those are people with expertise, and they approve of the Government's decision.

Not a single one of those people welcomed the sackings or supported them in any way. The First Minister is allowing ministers to foul up sportscotland. He made a nonsense promise in his manifesto, and it took eight months of turmoil before his minister botched it and broke it. Now, his vindictive and petty response is to sack Dougie Donnelly and Julia Bracewell. There are just 204 days until the start of the Olympic games. Instead of sharpening up Scotland's performance at those games, ministers were sharpening their long knives for the back of Dougie Donnelly. The Government is doing real damage to Scotland's sporting prospects. Why is it that, with Alex Salmond, top-quality sports leaders have to go, but his Fosbury flop of a sports minister can stay?

As is clear, the two bodies are not just merging: a radical overhaul will be carried out to create a single body under a single board. If a single body with a single board is to be created, it will not be a good idea to continue with two chairs. Even the Liberal Democrats might find it a bit difficult to have two chairs of one board. If there is one board and one chair, the two previous chairs clearly cannot continue in their jobs. Therefore, they are asked to stand down, as a new appointment will be made. That seems perfectly understandable.

They were sacked.

Order.

It seems that the Liberal Democrats might have continued with one body but two chairs. That is the sort of logic that created the quango state in Scotland, which the Government is now sorting out.

I will take a question from Jeremy Purvis on a constituency issue.

The First Minister will be aware of the very regrettable decision by Barbour Ltd to close its factory at Tweedbank in my constituency, which has resulted in 46 redundancies of hard-working and loyal staff. The partnership action for continuing employment team has been activated. Will the First Minister ensure that the staff, whom I met last night at a cross-party meeting, together with Christine Grahame, Karen Gillon and John Lamont, receive all the support that is needed?

The First Minister will be aware that the textile industry in Scotland is fragile and needs additional support. Will he reverse the decision to downgrade the status of the promotional and marketing body for the industry, Scottish Textiles, which has scant presence in the economic strategy but which is crucial for supporting that fundamental business for the industry?

The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism has met textile industry representatives to discuss the latter point. I say to the local MSPs who visited the factory that the PACE team is aware of the situation and has met management. All facilities and support will be made available to the workforce. I represent a rural constituency, so I am well aware that 46 jobs can be a huge and substantial loss, as it will be in Tweedbank. Therefore, we consider the closure to be of great regret and significance, which is why the assistance that the member mentioned has already been mobilised.

---

Locally Sourced Food

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to promote healthy diets from locally sourced products among the people of Scotland. (S3F-445)

The discussion document "Choosing the Right Ingredients: The Future for Food in Scotland", which was launched this week, provides an opportunity for our farmers and consumers to become involved in the conversation to inform a long-term vision for food in Scotland. We are keen to encourage local suppliers to access a range of markets and to respond to the demand for healthier and affordable food in Scotland.

I welcome the launch of the national food discussion. Does the First Minister agree that introducing children to healthier and—which is important—locally sourced products at an early age will have lifelong benefits, and that the Government's pilot of free school meals can only help in that process? Furthermore, does he agree that ensuring that all our children have a healthy diet, regardless of their background, should be central to any national food policy?

I agree with those points. The free school meals pilot gives us a substantial opportunity to pursue some of the arguments. Clearly, a healthy and balanced diet will not always include produce that is grown or sourced successfully in Scotland, but where we can produce home-grown solutions, we should do so. We should be aware of the great concern throughout the public sector about that. For example, there is concern that food in a number of private finance initiative hospitals has been delivered over vast distances and not always in the most edible condition, according to patients. Fresh food is best and, where it is possible to deliver it in our public services, we should do so.

---

Organ Donation

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government supports a system of presumed consent for organ donation. (S3F-434)

We need a thorough public debate on that sensitive issue. In "Better Health, Better Care: Action Plan", we set out our commitment to have such a debate. We welcome the fact that the organ donation task force is looking at the pros and cons. We expect to have its report on the issue by the summer. The member will know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and I have indicated our support for moving in that direction, but he will also realise that a public debate is necessary.

I thank the First Minister for a helpful response—for once. I am glad that he and Gordon Brown see eye to eye on this issue, at least. Does he agree that the Scottish Government should implement the recommendations in the report that the organ donation task force published yesterday, including the recommendation that we set up a network of transplant co-ordinators? However, as that will have only a limited impact on the figure of 1,000 people in the United Kingdom who die each year unnecessarily while waiting for transplants, will he make representations on behalf of the Scottish Government to the task force—which is considering presumed consent—that legislation on the issue should be introduced throughout the United Kingdom at the first possible opportunity?

It is not just Gordon Brown and I who see eye to eye; it seems that George Foulkes and I do, too—I do not know which is the more dramastic combination, but I certainly welcome that.

As George Foulkes will know, yesterday, we announced our support for the range of initiatives from the UK organ donation task force. The Government is involved fully in that task force—it is ours as well as the Westminster Government's. The initiatives are designed to remove the barriers to organ donation in the existing system. It is expected and hoped that by introducing those initiatives a not-inconsiderable 50 per cent increase in organ donation can be achieved in five years. Although it is important that we have a debate on presumed consent—both the Prime Minister and I realise that a debate is necessary and require one to take place—it is also important that we make substantial progress on the recommendations in the report that was published yesterday. All members of Parliament, whatever their views on the matter, should remember that about 700 people are waiting for transplants right now in Scotland.

Like a good many members, I am a donor-card carrier. We all want the task force's recommendations to be implemented, because that is the way to increase organ donations. However, does the First Minister agree that consent that is presumed by the state is no consent at all and that the way forward is to gain real consent from individuals, through the Governments in the UK and Scotland doing everything possible to increase the number of registrations?

The initiatives that were announced yesterday address the unanimously agreed requirements to increase the range of registrations, make the system more effective, and achieve a 50 per cent increase in organ donations over the next five years. I think that everyone, including Mike Rumbles, would agree on those initiatives. In that context, we can have a debate, which is necessary and important. A variety of points of view on presumed consent will be expressed. My thinking and the Government's thinking is that we should move ahead with the recommendations that were announced yesterday, and that we should have the necessary debate. Ethical and moral issues arise, as do libertarian and political issues.

Members will forgive me if we overrun slightly on this important question. I call Kenneth Gibson.

Having worked on a member's bill to introduce presumed consent when the SNP decided last year to support the idea, I welcome the SNP's present stance. Members all round the chamber support the idea, although there are those such as Mr Rumbles who are opposed to it.

Will the First Minister use his influence to move the argument forward? Does he personally support presumed consent, as four of his 16 ministers did when John Farquhar Munro lodged an amendment to the Human Tissue (Scotland) Bill in the previous session of Parliament?

I think that I revealed that information to George Foulkes a few minutes ago. I am sympathetic to moving towards a system of presumed consent, but I acknowledge that a debate is necessary.

My opinion is moving on the issue. Attitudes now are different from the attitudes of a few years ago. Attitudes are moving towards presumed consent being a necessary initiative to save lives that are unnecessarily being lost at present. However, those of us who are sympathetic towards a move in that direction should acknowledge that others have legitimate concerns. It is right and proper that there should be a full debate on an issue that touches on many moral and ethical questions.

I recommended a move to presumed consent to the Health and Community Care Committee in my report on the topic in 2000. The recommendation was not accepted by the committee because public opinion had not moved. However, does the First Minister agree that, if we now move to presumed consent, the wishes of the family must still be respected and the family must still be asked for their view? With that element of additional consent, presumed consent in an opt-out system becomes feasible.

Yes, I agree with that. I have considered various safeguards that supporters of presumed consent have suggested. I repeat my view that a debate is necessary. We should all contribute to that debate; the Government certainly will and individual members of the Government certainly will. However, the priority is to move ahead with the range of initiatives that were announced yesterday. If they are applied correctly and implemented with enthusiasm, they will, I hope, result in a 50 per cent increase of available organ donors over the next five years.

---

Nuclear Power (Job Losses)

To ask the First Minister what information the Scottish Government has on how many jobs will be lost in Scotland following the announcement that it will not allow any new nuclear power stations to be built in Scotland. (S3F-433)

Scotland's two nuclear power stations will remain operational until the end of their safe economic life. Although employment at those sites is a matter for British Energy, we do not expect significant change over that time. As the member will know, after that time there will be a decommissioning process that will last many years. It is a very expensive process but, of course, it results in the generation of employment.

I thank the First Minister for his answer, although I doubt whether many people in Scotland's nuclear industry will.

The First Minister's decision to block new nuclear power stations will mean the loss of 705 core jobs at Torness and 671 at Hunterston. In addition, the decision raises concerns about Scotland's ability to meet its future energy demands. That may well jeopardise future investment in Scotland as businesses choose to invest elsewhere. How does the First Minister's decision on nuclear power tally with his objective to make Scotland wealthier?

I say at the outset that British Energy's employment figures are 460 at Hunterston and 470 at Torness. However, I do not see why people—even those who hold John Lamont's views—will be disappointed by my answer to his original question, in which I pointed out that the stations will remain operational until the end of their safe working life.

Although every job in Scotland should of course be valued, if we were to invest billions more in new nuclear generation, by definition we would not be investing those funds in other forms of generation. Although, of course, I recognise the importance of jobs in communities, let us just remember that there are now 2,600 jobs in renewable energy in Scotland—jobs that did not exist a few years ago, but which have been created by the substantial increase in renewables generation. As we move to clean coal solutions at Longannet, there will be an investment of—I think from memory—some £600 million, which will safeguard jobs in Scotland over the next generation. This country has a vast array of cheap, competitive and green energy resources that will generate thousands of jobs throughout Scotland in the energy sector.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Ms Alexander in her questioning of the First Minister raised issues regarding sportscotland, youth courts, police in Grampian, police numbers and police pensions—I might have missed one or two others. In total, Ms Alexander took 13 minutes for the question and answer session. If Ms Alexander cannot focus her questions, she should not complain about the kind of answers that she gets from the First Minister. The effect of that was that there were seven minutes of normal time left for questions from back-bench members.

What is the point of order, Ms Marwick?

Although I appreciate the overrun that you have allowed today, Presiding Officer, will you reflect on First Minister's questions and on whether an adequate balance between questions by front-bench members and questions by back-bench members was achieved?

I assure the member that I spend half my life reflecting on First Minister's questions. Questions are asked and answers are given—both sides of the equation add to the length of the session.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was going to write to you about the issue of how questions and answers are delivered in First Minister's question time, but I will raise it now, given Ms Marwick's point of order. I believe that one senior member was out of order in asking the First Minister's opinion about an opinion poll. The First Minister is here to give an account of his Government's actions, not to say what he thinks of opinion polls. I suggest with all due humility that you get the business managers together and go through the format for First Minister's question time.

Margo MacDonald knows perfectly well that that is not a point of order for me. I think that we should all go to lunch.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—