Plenary, 08 Mar 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, March 8, 2007

Official Report 582KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2761)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

On a very important issue, I remind the First Minister that rail commuters across Scotland are today enduring a second day of travel chaos and misery. When the Minister for Transport was asked yesterday what action he had taken to try to avert this deeply damaging strike, he said:

"It's not for me to get involved".

That is simply not acceptable, is it?

That is a gross misrepresentation of what the Minister for Transport said and I do not think that it deserves an answer.

I suggest to the First Minister that rail passengers across Scotland will think that the First Minister should be answering such questions, today of all days. From discussions that I have had, and from the comments that have come from members of his Government yesterday and today, it is abundantly clear that in the period from the breakdown of the talks on Monday to the start of the strike on Wednesday, the Executive took no action to try to bring together the two sides of the dispute. On the radio this morning, the Minister for Transport said that he spoke to Network Rail only yesterday and has still not spoken to the rail union. That is just not good enough.

I remind the First Minister that the railways are his responsibility and that Network Rail is funded by the taxpayer to the tune of £1 million each day. Is not that reason enough for the First Minister to have been in there before the strike started in order to knock heads together in the interests of the taxpayer and the travelling public?

The difference between me and my party and her leader elsewhere and her party is that I believe that we are running a country and a Government, not a railway.

The reality is that Ms Sturgeon grossly misrepresents what the Minister for Transport has said and done. As ever, she seeks to turn a dispute between a private company and the trade union that represents the employees of that company into a political dispute. The reality is that the passengers on our railways should come first.

I regard the strike yesterday, today and tomorrow as unnecessary and unacceptable. Having spoken yet again to Network Rail this morning, I believe that there is an opening or opportunity this afternoon that Network Rail would accept. Network Rail told me this morning that it would meet the trade union within an hour if the strike were called off and the trade union was willing to sit round the table with Network Rail. I believe that that is an offer that the trade union should accept. Even if the trade union had a point, it has made its point in the first 24 hours of the dispute. The union should call off the second 24 hours of the strike immediately, get round the table with Network Rail this afternoon and resolve the dispute in the interests of passengers throughout Scotland.

Is not the First Minister guilty of trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted? Network Rail is not just any private company—it is publicly funded, so the Government should have acted to try to avert the strike long before it happened.

I will remind the First Minister of the strike's devastating impact on commuters, business and the economy. No trains at all have run north of Stirling, there have been no trains anywhere after 7 o'clock and virtually no freight trains have run. The cost of that to business and the economy is £15 million. In the face of that, what did the Minister for Transport have to say yesterday? He said that his job is to "express … frustration". Should not the First Minister have thought a lot earlier and a lot more about the frustration that the strike would cause the public? Do not the public have a right to expect him to make a serious attempt to avert the strike, rather than simply to sit on the sidelines wringing his hands?

Since I became First Minister, on every occasion on which there has been a strike in the public or private sector, the nationalists have called on us to put pressure on the management to capitulate or to give in in the face of that action. That is not the role of Government in this country; our role is to tell the truth and to stand up for those who use the services. The reality is that the strike is unnecessary, because discussions could easily have continued for the rest of the week. In my view, at the very least the second day of the strike is unacceptable. The trade union should accept immediately the offer that Network Rail made to me this morning to get round a table this afternoon and it should call off the second 24 hours of the strike. If the Scottish National Party believed in genuine government in this country, it would support that call rather than try to politicise the dispute.

I support that call and I agree that the strike is unnecessary. However, the First Minister should have put pressure on both sides before the strike started. The First Minister's spokesman said yesterday that the First Minister was disappointed that the strike had happened. I suggest that the First Minister's disappointment is as nothing compared to that of the people who rely on trains to get to their work in the morning. Is not there a clear pattern in that whenever there is a need for strong leadership in Scotland, the First Minister and the Government are absolutely nowhere to be seen? Is not that just one reason why so many people in Scotland think it is time for a new Government and approach and for some real leadership?

We know that Miss Sturgeon likes to give in, because she gave in in a leadership election that allowed someone from London to be elected as her party leader. I assure Miss Sturgeon and Mr Salmond that the job of a First Minister and Government is not to capitulate and to give in whenever there is a threat of strike action; it is to stand firm and to ensure that negotiations take place. I call on the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the trade union that is involved, to get round the table this afternoon with Network Rail, to call off the second day of the strike and to ensure that the commuters and passengers on Scotland's railways come first, because the investment that we have put into new railways, new rolling stock and better transport in this country is not being used today as a result of action that need not be happening.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2762)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister again within the next fortnight. I look forward to discussing a range of issues of importance to Scotland.

I doubt that the First Minister will be too keen to discuss the situation on our railways. As has been said, thousands of commuters face misery as they struggle to get to work and back home because of the strike by signalling staff. The First Minister has just said that he spoke to Network Rail this morning. Was that his first intervention?

That is not what I said, actually. I said that I spoke to Network Rail "again … this morning". The Minister for Transport and I and our officials have had discussions on the issue.

I will make the same point to Annabel Goldie as I made to Nicola Sturgeon. First, the dispute is between a private company and its employees so they should resolve it. Secondly, there is no need for the dispute: the discussions could easily continue again this week and for a number of weeks before the new 35-hour week is meant to be introduced. In addition, Network Rail and the management have offered to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The trade union should at the very least be willing to accept that offer. If it is not, it should be round the table this afternoon negotiating with Network Rail rather than striking and putting commuters and other passengers at some disadvantage.

The First Minister cannot wriggle out of the question so easily. Bob Crow—not a man whom I am given to quoting on any occasion—said that the

"Executive sat on its hands and did nothing to help".

The implications of the strike are far wider than commuters' not being able to get to work. Some of the people who will not get to work on time are doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, policemen and firemen, so not only will the roads be congested and the economy suffer, but lives may be put at risk because Bob Crow has decided that Scotland is a soft touch for disruption. What has the First Minister been doing to tell Mr Crow that Scotland has moved on and that his views belong in the past?

It is not I who am agreeing with Bob Crow, although Annabel Goldie is quoting him. We see ridiculous hypocrisy from the Conservatives yet again. The reality is that a deal was agreed between the management of Network Rail and the trade union to avert a strike last year, which involved a significant pay rise and a reduction in the working week to 35 hours. The trade union has agreed implementation of that deal in every other part of the United Kingdom, so it is time it sat down and discussed an agreement for Scotland. There have been discussions every day this week—Network Rail made clear to me again this morning that it would be prepared to sit down this afternoon within an hour to have further discussions on the implementation of the agreement if the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers would call off the second day of the dispute and get round the table, too. It is no wonder that David Mundell thinks that the Scottish Tories are "clueless" when Annabel Goldie comes up with such rubbish and capitulation in the face of a strike.

Perhaps the difference between me and the First Minister is that the internal memos of my party do not end up in Scotland Yard. [Applause.]

The simple fact is that people like Bob Crow belong to an age that is far removed from modern Scotland. Is not it about time the First Minister showed a bit of leadership? Being First Minister is not just about patting oneself on the back when something half decent happens, but about standing up and taking charge when Scotland's rail network is in chaos. Is the First Minister as blasé as his Minister for Transport, Mr Scott, or will he stand up for Scotland's people and take action?

Members of my party have not ended up in jail for telling lies in court.

Not yet! Not yet! Not yet!

Mr Gallie, you are getting excited.

Mr Gallie can occasionally be excitable, but at least he is entertaining and consistent.

I will be clear: responsibility for the dispute and for resolving it lies with the employers and the employees. However, it seems clear to me—as it was yesterday, the day before and the day before that—that Network Rail is willing to have further discussions, which is why there has been communication every day this week. Network Rail has been reasonable and there is a deal in every other part of the country, so the trade union—the RMT—should accept the offer of discussions this afternoon. Having made its point in the first 24 hours of action, the RMT should call off the action for the second 24 hours. It should allow commuters and passengers who want to enjoy the benefits of improved rail travel in Scotland—whose numbers continue to increase—to get back on the trains so that they can get to work and get home again, too. The trade union should accept Network Rail's offer and I believe that it should do so immediately.

I will take one constituency supplementary this week.

The First Minister will be aware of the loss of jobs that my constituents at Ferguson Shipbuilders Limited's yard in Port Glasgow face. I welcome his decision earlier this week to bring forward the tendering process for the fisheries protection vessel, which I hope will be built at Ferguson's shipyard in my constituency.

However, I urge him to facilitate a meeting between management, shop stewards, Ross Finnie, Nicol Stephen and me so that we can give careful consideration to all the options for work that are open to Ferguson's yard. I also ask him to encourage his Minister for Transport, Tavish Scott, to make an early decision on the Gourock to Dunoon ferry, which would enable Ferguson's to bid for that order.

We are moving quickly on all those issues. In particular, the Cabinet agreed yesterday morning to take immediate action to ensure that the tendering process that is due for the fisheries protection vessel happens within the 90-day period, and agreed to assure Ferguson's that it will be in a position to express an interest in tendering.

I am sure that ministers will be willing to discuss those matters with Trish Godman, but I assure Parliament that Scottish Enterprise, with the encouragement of ministers, has been actively involved in discussions with Ferguson's about diversification, about developing its ability to win contracts in the future and about the work that it could be bidding for.

In addition, the tender process for Caledonian MacBrayne involves more vessels. Ferguson's may be able not only to tender, but perhaps even to win contracts for building them.

Thirdly, ministers have quite rightly ensured that the initial tendering process for a fisheries protection vessel has been properly scrutinised. In our view, there will be a more professional tendering process this time round, which will, we hope, mean that not just Ferguson's but other yards will be able to compete on a fair and consistent basis.

---

International Women's Day

To ask the First Minister, in light of international women's day on 8 March, what achievements there have been which have improved women's lives in Scotland. (S2F-2769)

International women's day is a day for reflection and celebration for women across the globe. We have much to be proud of on improving the lives of women in Scotland, but I think we all recognise that there is still much to do.

However, I am proud that the gender pay gap is narrowing; that girls and young women are leading the way in our schools, colleges and universities; that we have introduced tough new measures for the police and courts to tackle all forms of violence against women; that child care is improving, such that everyone who wants a nursery place for their three or four-year-old is guaranteed one; and that deaths from cervical and breast cancer have declined. In addition, I am especially proud that we have strong female representation in Parliament—the level of female representation here is among the best in the world.

I welcome the First Minister's answer on our achievements, especially the part of it about cervical cancer. Will he join me in welcoming today's announcement by the Labour Party that all 12-year-old girls will be offered a vaccination against cervical cancer? Does he share my ambition that Scotland should be the first nation in the world to have a population that is fully vaccinated against the disease?

Cervical cancer is not just an issue for the women who receive that frightening diagnosis; it is a massive issue for the families throughout Scotland who are affected by deaths from the disease, more than 100 of which continue to occur each year. Fear of cervical cancer adds considerably to the worries of young and older women throughout Scotland. As soon as the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation agrees to make the vaccination available in the United Kingdom, it will be right and proper for women in Scotland to receive it and to be free from that fear.

How will the Scottish Executive deliver on its obligations under the gender equality duty, which I believe will be stronger in Scotland than in the rest of the UK?

We will work with public and private partners who are affected by the duty to ensure that it is consistently implemented. The Scottish Executive's equality unit deals with a range of bodies and stakeholders on such issues and we monitor the implementation of not just the gender equality duty but the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

---

Ambulances (Emergency Calls)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to review the management of 999 emergency calls for ambulances. (S2F-2775)

There are no plans for a review of the management of 999 emergency calls for ambulances.

I put on record my admiration for the dedication of ambulance crews. Crew members and patients have contacted me to express concerns. A crewman from the Scottish Borders shed light on why ambulance crews in the area are taking longer to answer calls, when he said:

"It is definitely a management issue. Crews are being taken from the Borders up to Edinburgh to work. It doesn't seem to matter what is being done on your part, or the press. The service still continues to send crews out of their area."

In the light of a fairly recent case in the Borders that almost had very bad consequences, does the First Minister have an idea of the scale of the problem in Scotland? If he does not, are there grounds for an independent review or inquiry to determine the scale of the problem?

I prefer to improve the service, which is precisely what we have been doing. The average response time for ambulances in Scotland has come down to 8.4 minutes—the fastest it has ever been in Scotland. I give credit to the Scottish Ambulance Service. It would be possible for this Government to claim some of that credit by pointing to the increased resources for the service, because some 412 additional paramedics and technicians have entered the service since 2002. However, I want to give the credit to the people who work hard to ensure that ambulance services are available.

I also pay tribute to the people who work in the service in the Borders and in Dumfries and Galloway, where ambulance response times have been reduced again this year and are almost at the Scottish average, despite the rural nature of the area. Those people are doing a terrific job. Christine Grahame's constant attempts to run them down are unbecoming of her.

---

Gang-related Violence

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive is working to tackle gang-related violence. (S2F-2773)

Gang violence has a devastating impact on communities, which is why the Executive has taken unprecedented action to tackle the problem. There are tougher sentences for knife crime and new laws to tackle antisocial behaviour, and there has been action on alcohol, violence and drugs.

In addition to tougher enforcement, longer-term work is under way, which is aimed at changing the attitudes and behaviour of young people who are involved in gangs by providing opportunities for education, training and employment that offer real alternatives to crime and violence.

I welcome the First Minister's reply. He is aware that there are about 100 gangs spread across Glasgow, which range from handfuls of young men to long-established groups of between 50 and 100 members.

I warmly welcome the fact that last year there were 1,000 fewer victims of serious crime than there were when Parliament was established—the figure is at its lowest. However, Inspector Tom Halbert, from the violence reduction unit, said:

"The ‘typical' murder on the streets of Glasgow will be committed by a young man aged 15 to 21; he will carry a lock knife, which he claims is for his own protection."

Does the First Minister agree that youth panels in New York, which involve young people directly and give them leadership in reducing gang culture, have been successful and effective? Does he also agree that we need to look afresh at the sentencing regime? There is a case for longer, seven-year-maximum combined custody and community sentences. An approach that addresses the underlying reasons for violent behaviour would be effective and help to save lives.

There is a case for longer sentences, which is why we legislated for longer sentences for people who are convicted of knife crime. Lessons can be learned from New York, which is why the Minister for Justice visited that city. We can take on board good practice elsewhere to ensure that justice is faster and more effective locally—I am sure that there will be debates about that during the coming weeks.

In addition to ensuring that we have tougher sentences for people who carry out knife crime, and that we have better enforcement of the law—through, for example, our investment in the machinery that is currently helping to detect knives and other weapons—it will be important to work relentlessly to divert young people away from such lifestyles and into far more productive activity and hope. That is why we are also investing time and effort in providing opportunities for young people in education, training and leisure that will give them alternatives to gangland or weapon-related lifestyles.

The First Minister will be aware that gang violence all too often involves knives, and that only between a quarter and a half of people who are victims of knife attacks and have to go to hospital ever report the attacks to the police. For some time now, I have been calling for the mandatory reporting of the details of knife-crime incidents to the police by hospitals. I was therefore very pleased when two pilots to do just that were started at Glasgow royal infirmary and the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. The Minister for Justice hailed those pilots when they began. Can the First Minister tell me why one of those pilots has now been scrapped, and can he tell me when the results from the second will be published? If the results replicate the success of such schemes elsewhere, will the First Minister commit to rolling out such schemes across Scotland?

I will be happy to speak to either Strathclyde police or the local health board, whichever has been responsible for the pilots, and to provide Stewart Maxwell with a detailed reply.

Given the worrying incidence of gang violence in Scotland, is not it now time for the First Minister and his Government to take the lead in addressing the issue, and to put into practice the coalition's rhetoric on early intervention and curbing persistent youth offending by introducing youth courts for 14 and 15-year-old persistent offenders and by establishing a sentencing regime that is a real deterrent to repeat offenders, with the introduction of an additional tariff for anyone who faces a third custodial sentence?

I am sure that we will have debates on sentencing in the coming weeks, but I make the point to Margaret Mitchell that we already have a youth court in Scotland. More youth courts are being established. They are, from all the evidence, effective, which is why we support them and are making them happen.

---

Children's Hearings System

To ask the First Minister, following the recent announcement of an increase in the number of persistent young offenders, what measures are being taken to support the children's hearings system. (S2F-2772)

In 2007-08, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration will receive £27 million from the Executive, and the Executive will spend £1.4 million supporting the work of children's hearings system volunteers.

Investment in work to tackle offending behaviour generally has increased from £1.5 million in 2000-01 to £63 million in 2006-07, indicating the priority that we attach to the issue.

We also plan further reforms of the children's hearings system to develop and improve the current service in order to ensure that it has the right set up and adequate resources to do the best possible job to protect children and our communities.

I am sure that the First Minister will simultaneously agree that those volunteers do an excellent job and regret that one in three of them resigns every year. In many cases, that is caused by frustration. Does the First Minister agree that it is time to look into the operation of the children's hearings system, which was set up under a 1968 act? Will he look into revising the system to enable children's hearings to apply drug treatment and testing orders, to impose a more meaningful form of community service, and—as my colleague Margaret Mitchell has suggested—to take the more extreme cases of 14 and 15-year-olds out of the hearings system altogether and put them before the effective adult court for dealing with youth offenders, with the full range of disposals available to it?

Any of us who observe society today understand that the challenge is complex and requires a range of different actions and decisions. I reassure Bill Aitken that there has been a review of the children's hearings system. That review has reported, and I suspect that the issue will be a priority for a debate in the new session of the Scottish Parliament after 3 May.

In the meantime, it is important to reflect on the fact that, although we have to have tougher and faster justice and have to have youth courts and a children's hearings system that respond more quickly to issues that arise, we also have to ensure that young people in our communities have alternatives to the lifestyles that lead them into such scenarios. We also have to ensure that the families from which many of those young people come have support from a much earlier stage in order to ensure that the youngsters do not go off the rails in the future.

A range of different interventions is required. All of them will be important if we are to deal with one of the major challenges for society today, which is not just to do with youth justice but to do with the decline in standards and respect among a significant number—although a minority—of young people in certain communities.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—