I expect that many members will be particularly keen to contribute to the questions that have been selected this week. To ensure that as many members as possible get the chance to do that, I would be grateful for all members’ co-operation in keeping their contributions brief and to the point.
Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02907)
Later today, and ahead of a summit of humanitarian and civic organisations that I will host in Edinburgh tomorrow, I will write to David Cameron to again urge that the United Kingdom plays its full part in helping refugees in desperate need. I also have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
This week, we have seen pictures of women in the sea desperately trying to keep their babies afloat, fellow human beings left to suffocate in the backs of lorries because of evil traffickers, and refugees perilously packed on to boats unfit for the tides ahead. This morning, almost every paper in the land carried a picture of a boy who was washed on to the shore.
We have a Prime Minister who says that showing more compassion and taking in more refugees is not the answer. The First Minister has said that Scotland is ready and willing to do more than our share. Will she therefore convene an urgent meeting with Scotland’s council leaders, party leaders and people in the Parliament and other relevant Government agencies so that Scotland can speak with one voice and match our compassion with the action that we are all willing to take?
I have already taken the step of convening a summit tomorrow, to which I have invited humanitarian organisations, including the Scottish Refugee Council, leaders of councils and civic organisations and, indeed, our churches. I extend an invitation to the Opposition party leaders to attend that summit, as well.
As First Minister of Scotland, I pledge that I will ensure that Scotland does everything possible to help the refugee crisis. I will be far from the only person who was reduced to tears last night at the picture of a little boy washed up on a beach. That wee boy has touched our hearts, but his is not an isolated tragedy. He and thousands like him whose lives are at risk are not somebody else’s responsibility; they are the responsibility of all of us. So yes, I am very angry at the walk-on-by-on-the-other-side approach of the UK Government. I implore David Cameron to change his position today, and I pledge as First Minister of this country that we will stand ready to help to offer sanctuary to refugees who need our help.
I assure the First Minister that the Labour Party stands with her in doing everything that we can to tackle the humanitarian crisis.
I pay tribute to all the police officers and staff across the country who spend every day keeping us safe. Tragically, this summer one emergency call was not responded to for 72 hours. John Yuill and Lamara Bell lost their lives. At the time of the launch of the inquiry, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said that there was “no evidence” that the M9 accident had anything to do with the call centre being “overburdened” and pointed the finger at one individual. Today’s interim report recommends that plans to close call centres in Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness should be suspended. Scottish Labour called for that months ago. Can the First Minister confirm that those recommendations will be accepted?
Yes, they will be. I acknowledge that the review that is being carried out by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland arises from the tragic incident on the M9. We were all shocked and saddened by the circumstances surrounding the deaths of John Yuill and Lamara Bell, and all of our thoughts continue to be with their families. Police Scotland has already apologised. On behalf of the Scottish Government, I also want to say how deeply sorry I am for what those families are going through.
The review that the inspectorate is carrying out—I ask members to remember this—was, of course, instructed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to look specifically at the capacity and capability of control centres and the processes within them. In short, it was instructed to identify whether there are any systemic issues that we need to address. As Kezia Dugdale indicated, the interim review—I stress that it is an interim report that was published today—has one recommendation. It says that
“detailed planning for the previously agreed end-state model should continue”
but the current service centres in Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness should not close until Govan, Motherwell and Bilston Glen are fully capable of taking additional calls from the north and the new area control centre in Dundee is fully operational. We accept that recommendation unreservedly and the justice secretary will outline this afternoon how we will support Police Scotland to fully implement it.
That is indeed welcome news and I thank the First Minister for it. However, today’s report also seeks assurances on workforce planning. The First Minister sits in her seat today because of populist policies such as 1,000 extra police officers, but we know that civilian staff have paid the price for that policy. The latest figures show that, since 2011, the total number of staff in the police force has dropped by almost 2,000 individuals. The police force in Scotland is weaker under the Government.
Does the First Minister not realise how damaging that has been to the police in this country? Does she not understand how much harder that has made their jobs?
Kezia Dugdale seems to want to criticise the Scottish Government for deciding to integrate our police services to protect front-line police officers. Before we have a complete rewriting of history, I remind members of what was in Scottish Labour’s manifesto for the 2011 election. It said:
“To increase administrative efficiencies and free up resources for the frontline, Scottish Labour will legislate to deliver a single police force for Scotland.”
In other words, Labour called on the Scottish Government to do exactly what we have done.
I hope that we can continue to discuss the issue in an appropriate tone and I certainly welcome the tone of Kezia Dugdale’s earlier questions.
There have been recruitment issues at Bilston Glen in particular, but since March Police Scotland has conducted an active recruitment campaign that has received 1,600 applications. Recruitment and training are now under way and around 40 new starts are undergoing training each month. Improvements are being made.
I do not take the view that it is simply a case of looking at response times when calls are made; we have to look at the quality of the response and the inspectorate makes that point. However, response times are improving.
The Government will not shy away from taking the action that requires to be taken. Michael Matheson will set out more detail about how we will resource and support the police in implementing the recommendation in full.
The Scottish Labour Party manifesto supported the creation of a national police force. What the First Minister will not find in that manifesto is any plans to cut 2,000 civilian staff. The First Minister might call them administrative efficiencies but we think that they are hard-working people trying to do their job to keep people safe.
In the two years since Police Scotland was established, we have seen searches on children spiralling out of control, police counters closed, allegations of spying on journalists, police being armed without the consent of the Parliament or the Scottish people, and two tragic deaths. Every day, men and women put their personal safety on the line to keep people safe and they have been let down. This has been an unnecessary crisis and tragedy, caused by blind adherence to a Government policy that demands savings.
In the summer, the First Minister’s Government closed ranks with the top brass and let rank-and-file police officers take the blame. After years of denying that there is a problem, does the First Minister now accept that her plans for reform have major shortcomings and that the case for a truly independent and effective police authority is now unanswerable?
I remind Kezia Dugdale that her party’s manifesto called for cost efficiencies to be made and recognised the necessity of that given the budget constraints that we faced. To the best of my knowledge—the finance secretary will be able to correct me if I am wrong—Scottish Labour has never come to the Scottish Government during the budget process to ask for more money to be spent on the police. I simply point out those facts as background and context to Kezia Dugdale’s line of questioning.
I highly value and appreciate the efforts of all our police officers and civilian staff who work in our police. All the issues that Kezia Dugdale has raised today demand and will get a serious response. However, let us not forget something else: our police service has helped to bring crime in this country to a 40-year low. This country is safer as a result of what we have done to protect officer numbers on the front line. The credit for that goes to police staff right across the country.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02915)
I have no plans in the near future.
This morning’s police watchdog report into the deaths of John Yuill and Lamara Bell shows that staff shortages in call centres are creating an “additional risk” that vital calls to the police are not being handled properly. We know from last week that thousands of routine calls to the Dundee control room are still not answered in time because of staff shortage and absence.
Those events did not come out of the blue. They were predicted as a direct consequence of the Government’s centralisation agenda. The then justice minister was warned that this would happen; the Scottish Police Authority was warned that this would happen; and the Scottish Government was warned that this would happen. Why did nobody take any notice?
Just in the interests of ensuring that people remember the background to Police Scotland, I remind people that the Conservatives’ 2011 election manifesto said:
“we are committed to maintaining Police numbers ... In order to ensure we can achieve this at a time when the public sector has to make savings, we will merge Scotland’s eight police forces into one.”
I quote that for no reason other than to ensure that people who are listening to proceedings have the full context.
Far more important is that this is an issue that demands and is getting a response. Today’s interim report by HM inspectorate of constabulary came about because the Cabinet Secretary for Justice asked the inspectorate to look in detail at the call centres’ capacity and capability and at their processes. We also see in the report that there have been improvements in the response times to 101 and 999 calls. However, as I said to Kezia Dugdale, what is important is the quality of the response as opposed to just the time taken to respond.
We will fully implement the recommendation that HM inspectorate of constabulary made today and we will implement any recommendations that are in its final report. That is the right response to what was an extremely serious and tragic incident, and the Government will continue to respond in that way.
I think that the 23,000 members of staff at Police Scotland do a heroic job, given the hand that they were dealt by the Government. However, their warnings could not have been more explicit.
The First Minister has talked twice now about context, so I will give her some. In January 2014—more than 18 months ago—Assistant Chief Constable Mike McCormick wrote in a report on the likely consequences of a reduction in call-handling centres that
“any reduction to the number of sites creates challenges in retaining existing experienced staff.”
We know what happens when the calls get covered by staff without that experience—we end up having to commission reports such as today’s.
Two years in, the Government’s record on police reform is: call centres cut to the bone, with tragic consequences; a stop-and-search policy that might not even be legal; and a hand-picked police chief who has walked away from it all. Is that a record that the First Minister is proud to stand on?
I take the view that the Government was right to move to a single police force because, in doing that, we have been able to maintain the extra officers on the streets of Scotland that I believe that people want and which the Conservative Party called for in its manifesto and—unlike Labour, it is fair to say—in successive budget discussions.
These issues are serious. That is why the serious response that Michael Matheson has made is the right one. We will respond to all the recommendations that are made. However, I am surely not hearing Ruth Davidson or Kezia Dugdale say today that, having been in favour of a single police force, they would have left the numbers of call centres that service that police force exactly as they were.
We took the difficult decision to reform the police force. It is now absolutely right that we properly support the police to implement that change, and we will implement the recommendation on the timing of the remaining phases of the modernisation process. I and Michael Matheson will ensure that the police are appropriately supported to do that. As I said, Michael Matheson will go into greater detail about that this afternoon.
As the matter has been raised twice and I have not yet responded directly to it, I thank John Scott for the report on stop and search that he has published today—a report that Michael Matheson asked for. The report recommends a statutory code of practice on stop and search, and I indicated on Tuesday in outlining my programme for government that we will provide that. The advisory group also recommends, although not unanimously, that the practice of non-statutory stop and search should come to an end. When the code of practice is in place, we intend to bring an end to non-statutory stop and search.
David Torrance has a constituency question.
Havelock Europa has just announced a 10 per cent reduction in its workforce. It is a major employer in my constituency. What assistance can the Scottish Government give the employees who will face redundancy?
I very much share the member’s concern about developments in respect of Havelock Europa and the potential impact that the situation will have on employees, their families and the surrounding area of Fife. I confirm that, when the announcement was made on Tuesday, we immediately contacted the company to offer support for affected employees through our partnership action for continuing employment initiative. Scottish Enterprise is meeting the company today to discuss support for the business, in order to minimise any negative impact. I am happy to keep all interested members up to speed on the Government’s involvement.
Cabinet (Meetings)
I can tell the First Minister that I will join her tomorrow at the humanitarian summit. We can help individuals who are in desperate need, and we absolutely must help them. The pictures over the past 24 hours have been dreadful and we must do all that we can to help.
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02917)
I thank Willie Rennie for that.
At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
After repeated warnings about Police Scotland, the Scottish Government is finally beginning to act, with an end to industrial-scale stop and search, a proper examination of the serious problems in police call handling and a review of how Police Scotland should be held to account. That is progress at last, but I fear that the First Minister’s plans do not go far enough.
Individual officers have told me that the pressure is on them to meet nationally imposed targets rather than concentrate on their community’s specific needs. Before the new chief constable is appointed, will the First Minister agree to an independent look at the top-down target culture in Police Scotland?
I make it absolutely clear that I have no interest in a police service that is meeting targets at the expense of keeping communities safe. I do not believe that that is what our police service does. It is because of the sterling work that our police service does that we have crime levels today at a 40-year low.
In my statement on Tuesday on the programme for government, I indicated that we will take the opportunity of the appointment of the new Scottish Police Authority chair to review governance at the national level. Michael Matheson will give more details of that this afternoon. We will also take steps to enhance local scrutiny and accountability. I set out the plan to require the chief constable to attend local scrutiny sessions, and Michael Matheson will convene a summit on local scrutiny later this month. We would be happy to hear further views and ideas about how we should enhance that.
I believe that the single police force that we have put in place is right, but I also believe that the Government has a sacred duty to ensure that we learn lessons and that, when action is required, action is taken. That is my job as the First Minister and Michael Matheson’s job as the justice secretary, and we will not shy away from it.
That is good to hear, because concerns about call centres and stop and search were initially dismissed, although they were completely justified. Top-down targets are what led to industrial-scale stop and search, so I do not want the First Minister to dismiss the concern that exists about the target culture in Police Scotland. The staff survey report will not make comfortable reading. The First Minister heard the concern when she was with me at the Scottish Police Federation conference in the spring. Will she think again and agree to an independent look at the target culture before a new chief constable is given free rein for five years?
John Scott makes the point in his report today—this has always underpinned policing in our country, but it is worth reiterating—that operational matters are for the police, but the limits of police authority are for Parliament to define and decide on. That is the right balance of responsibilities.
I have said that, given where we are with the merger of the police forces and the experience to date, we will review national governance. Michael Matheson will outline the remit and process for that this afternoon, and all members of this Parliament—as well as all the people working in our police service and members of the public—will have due opportunity to feed into that.
I want to make sure that we have in this country what I believe we have and have always had, which is a police service that is focused on keeping people and communities safe. I repeat that we have crime at a 40-year low. That does not mean that we dismiss or do not listen to concerns that are raised, and we will not do that. However, it does mean that, as we listen to concerns, we should remember the achievements of our police service and make sure that we thank each and every one of its members for them.
BBC Charter Renewal
To ask the First Minister what role the Scottish Government is playing in discussions regarding the BBC charter renewal process. (S4F-02909)
As I set out at the Edinburgh international television festival last week, the Scottish Government is committed to playing a full and constructive role in the process of BBC charter renewal as agreed in the recent memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Parliament, the BBC and the Scottish Government.
The Government is engaging with a range of interested stakeholders and the rest of the UK to ensure that a range of perspectives can inform the development of priorities for Scotland in the setting of the next charter. That is critical to ensuring that the BBC delivers for the people of Scotland and is truly representative of our needs and requirements.
I am sure that the First Minister will agree that the powers over broadcasting should be devolved to this Parliament. In the meantime, can she set out what the Scottish Government’s vision is for the future of the BBC through the charter renewal process and what role we can play as parliamentarians to help engage the wider public on the future of the charter?
First and foremost, the fundamental point is that everything that the BBC does should be underpinned by editorial and creative independence. However, I want to see a BBC that better serves the needs of people across Scotland and, indeed, the other nations and regions of the UK.
I set out a number of proposals last week and I hope that they are considered seriously in the process of charter renewal. I think that there is a need for changes to the BBC structure to have a more federal structure; I think that there is definitely a need for fair funding of BBC Scotland; and I think that we need an additional TV and radio channel so that we can better represent the different interests of Scotland. Those are all proposals that we have put forward in good faith.
It is no secret that I think that control of broadcasting should be devolved to this Parliament, not because this Government wants to control broadcasting, as this is not a debate about whether—[Laughter.]
Order.
Labour members laugh, but this is not a debate about whether a Parliament sets the framework for broadcasting; it is a debate about which Parliament sets it, and I think that the Scottish Parliament is better doing that than the Westminster one.
The BBC is facing a very tough licence fee settlement. We want to be ambitious for the BBC, but we need to maintain quality. Does the First Minister recognise that, while an additional channel may be her preferred option, a number of options will need to be considered and that we need an open debate that is led by licence fee payers? Will the Scottish Government’s engagement reflect that?
We are engaging with a range of stakeholders. We have put forward some proposals, but I am absolutely open to the idea that there are other proposals out there to be discussed. Maybe a good starting point in that process would be Labour stopping just criticising the Scottish National Party proposals and bringing forward some of its own.
Genetically Modified Crops
To ask the First Minister what scientific evidence the Scottish Government used as the basis for its recent announcement on GM technology. (S4F-02920)
The Government has always taken a precautionary approach on GM cultivation. Following the introduction of new European Union rules, we have announced our intention to opt out of growing GM crops. Our main consideration is as it has always been: that allowing GM crops could risk Scotland’s clean, green status and the £14 billion food and drink sector that it supports.
It is interesting to note that our decision is being mirrored in other EU countries, such as Germany, and is welcomed by key agricultural and environmental stakeholders, as well as some scientists, who have warned of the uncertainties and potential negative biodiversity and environmental impacts that are associated with growing GM crops.
I am sure that the First Minister has read the open letter to Richard Lochhead, which was signed by 28 research organisations, including “some scientists”, I am sure, to express extreme concern that the decision
“risks constraining Scotland’s contribution to research”,
and
“is an approach to evidence that surprises and disappoints many scientists and non-scientists alike.”
Will the First Minister tell us what steps she will take to engage with the Scottish scientific community that has expressed those concerns? Given that the decision was taken without the input of the chief scientific adviser, what efforts will the Scottish Government make to fill that important vacancy?
Well, of course we have a chief scientific adviser for rural affairs, food and the environment in post.
The decision does not affect research in Scotland, and I ask Drew Smith to look at it a little more closely. The types of GM science that are undertaken in many of our universities and research institutes are unaffected by the decision, which relates only to the potential cultivation of EU-authorised GM crops in the open environment. We have taken that decision because we value the clean, green environment that supports our food and drink sector. That is the Scottish Government’s position.
I have to say that I am more than a little surprised to learn that Labour is in favour of GM crop cultivation—I see that some Labour members are shaking their heads, so maybe there is a need for Labour to clarify its position. I think that it would come as a surprise to the albeit dwindling number of Labour supporters in Scotland to hear that Labour members are advocates of GM crops.
Not only have we not had a chief scientific adviser in post since December last year but there are eight vacancies on the Scottish Science Advisory Council and have been since January. When will those vacancies be filled?
Given that the First Minister just mentioned Professor Louise Heathwaite, the chief scientific adviser for rural affairs and environment, will she say whether Professor Heathwaite was consulted prior to the announcement on the banning of GM crops?
I have outlined the rationale—[Interruption.]
Order.
I have outlined the rationale and basis for the Scottish Government’s decision. I will defend the decision, because I think that it is right for a sector that is hugely important to our economy. I visited a farm just last week to hear directly about some of the issues—[Interruption.]
Order!
—that are being faced by our primary food producers. Our food and drink sector is hugely important to our economy and if we want to support it we need to ensure that our clean, green reputation is enhanced.
That is the position. I will leave it to other parties to argue their own positions, and allow the people of Scotland to draw their own conclusions.
Refugees
To ask the First Minister what assistance the Scottish Government can provide to the United Kingdom Government in relation to the refugee crisis. (S4F-02922)
First, I welcome Rod Campbell’s clear description of what we are witnessing as a “refugee crisis”. People fleeing Syria are not economic migrants; they are seeking refuge and asylum, and above all else they are human beings.
We have repeatedly made clear to the UK Government our determination that Scotland plays a full part in efforts to offer sanctuary to those in desperate need. The UK Government’s refusal to take part in the EU’s collective efforts on relocation and resettlement is, in my view, utterly shameful.
As I have said, tomorrow I will host a summit of humanitarian and civic organisations—I have already extended the invitation to Opposition leaders—to look at what Scotland can do to support refugees who are seeking safety. It is my intention that we then put forward to the UK Government specific proposals on what Scotland can do and wants to do.
As First Minister I repeat that I am determined that Scotland plays its full part but, for us to take refugees as I want us to do, the UK Government first has to agree to take its fair share, and I call on David Cameron to do so.
I welcome those comments and indeed the First Minister’s earlier comments. Does she agree that fortress Britannia is the very opposite of what is required here and that what is needed is a pan-European approach? Does she also agree that we in Scotland could perhaps learn from the example of one of the smaller countries in Europe and the people in that country—Iceland?
I think that we could learn from many other European countries—such as Iceland, Sweden and Germany—that are, to be frank, taking a lead on moral grounds. I believe that, if there is to be a proper response to this refugee crisis, it takes the European Union and all its member states to come together to find that solution.
I also think that there is something else that David Cameron and the UK Government must stop doing. They must stop using their party’s stance on immigration to get in the way of a human response to a humanitarian crisis.
David Cameron and I do not always see eye to eye on immigration, but this is not about immigration; it is about refuge and asylum, and we must respond as human beings. We simply cannot walk by on the other side; otherwise, that little boy, who we were all so touched by last night, will just become one of many, many more. We cannot and must not have that on our consciences.
I thank the First Minister for her comments concerning the appalling situation facing those of our fellow human beings seeking refuge in Europe.
This week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not just welcome people to her country; she also stood in front of a group of right-wing protesters and told them that they were wrong. She said that there is in her country
“no tolerance towards those who question the dignity of other people.”
Those are in my view the actions of a leader. Does the First Minister agree that it is time that David Cameron demonstrated similar leadership and compassion, instead of continuing to turn his back on what are the most desperate people on the planet?
Yes I do and I echo 100 per cent the comments of Angela Merkel, which Patricia Ferguson has just read out.
The first thing that David Cameron has to do is show some compassion, because when I watched him on the television last night I did not see any of that. Let us start with compassion and then let us join it with leadership. If we show both of those things, we can demonstrate that the proud traditions that Britain has in welcoming refugees have not died in the depths of a Tory debate about immigration; they are alive and well. This is a welcoming country and will not turn its back on people who need us.
Previous
General Question Time