First Minister's Question Time
I am sure that the Parliament wishes to join me in welcoming Dr Gabriele Matzner-Holzer, the Austrian ambassador to the United Kingdom, who is in the gallery. The ambassador is most welcome. [Applause.]
Engagements
I, too, welcome the Austrian ambassador.
I start by paying my respects to Tommy Burns. He epitomised all that is good in Scottish football and he will be greatly missed by everyone in Scotland. I know that I speak for the Parliament when I say that our thoughts are with Rosemary and his family at this time. [Applause.]
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-763)
I welcome Wendy Alexander's tribute to Tommy Burns. He was an outstanding servant of Celtic and Scotland. He was always there at the call of his club and country. He will certainly be hugely missed, by his family, to whom we send our condolences, and right across the world of football and well beyond. It is entirely appropriate that the Parliament says that today.
Later today, I will take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.
In that vein, I congratulate Walter Smith and the Rangers team on reaching the UEFA cup final. It was a remarkable football achievement for the whole of Scotland.
However, in the light of last night's events—equipment breakdown and sporadic violence—does the First Minister agree that there is a need for an inquiry involving Greater Manchester Police, Manchester City Council, Glasgow City Council, Strathclyde Police and Rangers security?
Manchester City Council announced an inquiry this morning. I understand that its scope will initially be limited to looking at the circumstances of the equipment breakdown in Piccadilly Gardens. The scope of the inquiry should be wider, because there are a number of other aspects to inquire into. We will certainly co-operate fully with the inquiry on all the matters under our responsibility.
We should reflect on the fact that more than 100,000 supporters went to Manchester. The overwhelming majority of them, in an overwhelming number of locations, enjoyed the carnival atmosphere of a festival of football. The assistant chief constable of Manchester made that point this morning and I witnessed it myself.
There were clearly severe organisational problems in one particular location. However, it should be said that, regardless of organisational problems and any other questions that the inquiry can legitimately pursue, it seems that the behaviour of a small minority of fans was completely unacceptable. The Parliament should reflect on that fact because it is infuriating for Scottish football and Rangers Football Club. The reputation that has been built up during a quarter of a century by Scotland fans and Scottish club fans, including Rangers fans who went through 18 matches in the magnificent journey to that cup final, has been based on the fans' ability, regardless of circumstances, to behave impeccably. The Parliament must always send that message to every club and all Scottish football fans.
I associate myself with the First Minister's remarks, but I want to probe some of the themes that he has just put on record.
As the First Minister acknowledged, it was one of the biggest ever travelling supports for a single football match, and the vast majority of fans were a credit to the club and their country. As we know, there was widespread debate in advance of the event about how welcome ticketless fans would be made in the city. In light of those concerns, will the First Minister tell us about any representations that the Scottish Government made to the Manchester authorities in advance? Does he believe that Manchester City Council and the police were fully prepared for the sheer numbers of fans that arrived in the city?
Police in Scotland and Rangers security and facilities were fully involved in discussions with Manchester City Council and the Manchester police. I was involved in discussions last Friday about preparations, and I made it clear that every possible facility of the Scottish Government would be used to liaise.
It is fair to say that a change of approach and direction was made quite late in the day to how Manchester looked to cope with an inevitably huge influx of fans on an extraordinary scale. The fact that there was a carnival atmosphere in so many locations—I witnessed it myself—and that things were conducted entirely properly indicates that it is possible to police such a situation. However, I am sure that the inquiry that Manchester City Council is to conduct, which I hope will be extended to cover some other areas, will identify key failings—the equipment failure is an obvious one—and will learn lessons that can be applied in the future. Let me say again on behalf of the Scottish Government that we will co-operate fully in giving information to the inquiry. I know that that will be the attitude of Rangers Football Club. Everyone in Scotland will be anxious that we co-operate to ensure that any lessons that can be learned are learned and that such scenes are not witnessed again.
I return to the theme of learning lessons. It is clear that late changes in direction do not help. It would be valuable if the First Minister were to use his offices to press for the inquiry to be quick, to be early and to be one from which all the findings are made public, so that we can learn lessons for the future for other major events, such as hogmanay parties, T in the Park and the Commonwealth games. Can the First Minister assure us that, regardless of how broad the inquiry is, he will look for its findings to be made public and for it to be completed as soon as possible?
I am certain that Manchester City Council will want to make the findings of its inquiry public; I cannot conceive that it would want to adopt any other approach.
As regards the examples of events in Scotland that Wendy Alexander gave, such as the Commonwealth games, I believe that the exceptional record that we have on policing such events is evidence that our procedures are in good condition. Clearly, any lessons that can be learned will be learned.
I stress that, given the numbers involved, we are talking about a highly exceptional circumstance. I am sure that, as we would have done, Manchester would have loved it if the situation had been coped with absolutely perfectly. As I said, the scenes that we saw last night involving the behaviour of a very small minority of fans were unacceptable. There have been 42 arrests, 30 of which were of Rangers fans. Their behaviour was unacceptable. All punishments that can be allocated must be allocated. I am anxious, for example, that we continue our work with the Home Office to close the loophole that allows football banning orders that are imposed in England not to be applied in Scotland. The number of people involved compared with the total number of fans makes it clear that there is a small minority that must be dealt with.
In relation to the examples that Wendy Alexander gave, we should take some comfort from the fact that, on the vast majority of occasions, the arrangements that we have in Scotland are such that we have no reason whatever to suppose that the Scottish police and the Scottish authorities are not capable of policing large-scale events. We do so impeccably day and daily.
I associate myself with the First Minister's remarks, but it would be wrong to leave the subject without acknowledging that alcohol was a contributory factor in last night's events. Only yesterday in the Parliament, I offered Labour's support for working jointly with all parties to make headway in addressing the problem. I make that offer again today. Will the First Minister now set a timetable for working with other parties on alcohol?
The proposals will be introduced in June, as I think Wendy Alexander knows, and I hope that they will carry the Parliament's support. We accept that the underlying issues are a severe social challenge for Scotland.
I hope that in accepting that challenge and taking the measures that are necessary to address the problem and face up to the issues that it gives us as a nation, the Parliament will never put itself in the position of regarding alcohol as any sort of excuse for violent or disorderly behaviour. That is part of the task of facing up to that challenge as a people and as a country.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I, too, associate myself with the remarks of the First Minister and Wendy Alexander in relation to the late Tommy Burns.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-764)
I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.
If he can find the secretary of state, perhaps the First Minister can ask him for his view on the referendum—if the First Minister has time to spare.
This has been a week of policy U-turns and acrobatics. There has been a major clash of policy between a party leader at Westminster and his colleague at Holyrood—who is apparently responsible for tactics and policy—of whom the First Minister said:
"I think her position is untenable, you can't reconcile what she's been saying over the last few days ... Either she has to go or he has to go, he's not going to go, therefore I suspect that her position has become untenable."
On issues of such national importance, does the First Minister hold to that principled position?
I detect a leading question and an attempt to invite me into an untenable position, so I will confine myself to saying about Des Browne:
They seek him here,
They seek him there,
Those journalists seek him everywhere.
The First Minister has never been a man to be shy of verbosity, and he cannot hide from his words. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander—in this case the goose is the First Minister and the gander is the Minister for Schools and Skills, Maureen Watt, and her U-turns and acrobatics on physical education in schools.
Four weeks ago the First Minister denied scrapping his policy and said that we should not believe everything that we read in the papers. On Tuesday evening on Radio Scotland, Maureen Watt said that the election guarantee of two hours of quality PE each week delivered by specialist PE teachers could include walking to school. That was subsequently contradicted by the Government and slapped down by the First Minister in the Parliament yesterday.
Such confusion on as important an issue as the future health of our nation is utterly unacceptable. Will the First Minister implement his own advice? Is he going, or is his Minister for Schools and Skills going?
We do not do slapping down in this Administration; we move together in a totally coherent fashion to implement our manifesto.
As Annabel Goldie well knows, our commitment is on planned physical education in schools. The interview, a transcript of which I read, strayed into areas of physical activity as well as planned physical education. Annabel Goldie knows from the curriculum for excellence website this week—and it will be explained in the document "Building the curriculum 3: A framework for learning and teaching", which is due to be published soon—that what we are doing is clear and well understood. Annabel and I could benefit from both physical activity and physical education.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-765)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
I and my colleagues share the great sadness at the untimely death of Tommy Burns. We also associate ourselves with the call for an immediate and full inquiry into last night's events in Manchester, which have undermined Scotland's recent unblemished record.
In March, a Government spin doctor said that the guarantee of two hours of physical education had been dropped, but the First Minister issued a clarification and said that that was not true. This week, the Minister for Schools and Skills said that the two-hours target included walking to school, but yesterday the First Minister issued a clarification and said that that was not true. The Scottish National Party manifesto said:
"we will ensure that every pupil has 2 hours of quality PE each week delivered by specialist PE teachers."
Was any of that true?
I said that we do not do slapping down in this Government, but I think that Nicol Stephen has been beaten to the punch by Annabel Goldie. It is probably best to have a question in reserve in such circumstances.
I refer Nicol Stephen to the commitment on planned physical education in the draft experiences and outcomes for health and wellbeing, which were published on the curriculum for excellence website on Tuesday, in which we say:
"The Scottish Government expects schools to continue to work towards the provision of two hours of good quality PE for every child every week."
I can exclusively reveal to Nicol Stephen that that commitment will also be contained in the document "Building the curriculum 3: a framework for learning and teaching", which is due to be published soon. Is that clear to Nicol Stephen?
The First Minister seems relaxed about all this. I wonder whether all the radios in Bute house have been confiscated. Has the First Minister not heard what has been going on? His promise was made in two parts: not only would two hours of PE be delivered for every child, but those hours would be delivered by specialist PE teachers. The Minister for Schools and Skills, Maureen Watt, was asked on the radio:
"Good quality. Does that mean specialist teaching?"
She replied:
"Well, it needn't mean specialist teaching."
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, was asked on the radio:
"You promised that, didn't you? You said that you will ensure that every pupil has two hours."
She replied:
"I can't be in every single school detailing the timetabling."
That is two ministers over two days each walking away from half of the promise.
We are fed up with the evasions and contortions, so will the First Minister tell us simply when all children in Scotland will have two hours of PE every week with a qualified PE teacher? That was the SNP promise; when will it be delivered?
Nicol Stephen should remember that it was also the previous Administration's promise, which it did not deliver.
I read out what was published on the website this week, but I wonder about Nicol Stephen's reference to wanting to be in every school around the country. Is he saying that, if Scotland had the misfortune to have him as education minister, he would be intervening in every school around the country? In Scotland, we do not have a curriculum that is imposed from the centre; we focus on outcomes and follow that through with inspections by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education.
Scotland currently has 1,756 qualified physical education teachers. In addition, over the next three years we are maintaining support worth £1.8 million to the University of Glasgow and the University of Edinburgh for certificate courses for the development of physical education teaching for primary teachers. That is why we are able to say that we expect schools to continue to work towards the provision of two hours of good-quality physical education for every child, every week.
In other words, we are working towards what the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party refused to do.
The First Minister will be aware of the serious concerns about the proposal by NHS Borders to close wards in Borders general hospital over the summer as part of making £10 million of cuts over the next three years, including in stroke and palliative care provision. The Scottish Government's decision to remove the rural weighting that grants additional funds to NHS boards in rural areas to reflect the additional costs of health care in such areas will have a direct impact on health care provision in the Borders. Will the First Minister review the policy before the cuts bite and ensure that rural health provision continues to benefit under the Arbuthnott formula, which reflects the additional costs of providing health services in rural areas?
Under the formula, no health board in Scotland is losing money and, therefore, it is inadvisable to talk about cuts in that fashion. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing is delighted to talk to constituency members about local concerns—that is the purpose of having constituency members—but I hope that, when Jeremy Purvis goes into a meeting with her, he will do so with the facts of how the funding mechanism for each health board in Scotland has improved and, therefore, will be able to conduct that discussion in the way that his constituents would expect.
International Aid
To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to support aid and relief efforts, following the natural disasters in Burma and China. (S3F-788)
The thoughts of everyone in the Parliament are with those in Burma and China at this extremely difficult time.
Ms Fabiani met key members of the Disasters Emergency Committee in Scotland last week to discuss the situation in Burma and the proposed activities for the DEC campaign in Scotland. Officials will continue to work closely with the DEC in Scotland. I am glad to say that, thus far, £600,000 has been raised by the DEC in Scotland for the Burma appeal, which is a magnificent response from the people of Scotland.
I am sure that all members echo the First Minister's views and recognise the important contributions that aid agencies are making.
With the prospect of another cyclone hitting Burma and hopes of a diplomatic breakthrough dashed, does the First Minister agree that the regime there should co-operate fully with the international community in the ways that reports suggest that China has done to ensure that aid gets through quickly to those who need it most? What role can the Scottish Government play as part of that international community to encourage the regime to co-operate and what can the Scottish people proactively do to help the situation in Burma and China?
I have written to the Chinese consul general in Scotland and indeed to the governor of Sichuan province to extend Scotland's condolences for the losses in the earthquake and to underline the Scottish Government's readiness to do what it can to help.
In answer to Aileen Campbell's specific question, I have also written to the Burmese ambassador, also making clear Scotland's readiness to help, but urging the Burmese Government to ensure that the assistance that the international community provides can be delivered to those who so badly need it. I urge the Scottish people to help with the situation in Burma by continuing to contribute, as they have done in such a magnificent fashion, to the DEC appeal. To make it easier for them to do so, we have provided a link to the appeal on the Scottish Government's website.
Last week, when Nicol Stephen raised the matter, I got the distinct impression from the First Minister's answer that the Government had not responded quickly to the problems in Burma. I am pleased to know that the minister has now met the Disasters Emergency Committee to discuss what more can be done.
One of the big issues seems to be the difficulty of getting aid workers on to the ground in Burma to deal with sanitation, water supplies and public health.
Question, please.
What more can the Government do to press the Burmese Government to allow aid workers on to the ground in Burma to deal with those important matters?
I know that the Scottish people's wish is for us to consider the matter in a united fashion. We all know what needs to be done. The matter does not need to be an aspect of political point scoring in any sense. I am certainly not going to do that.
We will approach the matter, as we are doing, by helping the excellent charities that we have in Scotland, through the Disasters Emergency Committee, to do the work that they are doing in such a magnificent fashion. Raising £600,000 in an appeal under these circumstances is a great effort from the Scottish people. I hope that every politician in the chamber is capable of living up to the efforts and benefits of the people of Scotland in responding to international emergencies such as the one in Burma.
The First Minister will be aware that the official death toll in Burma stands at 32,000 and is likely to rise. Given not only that further cyclones are expected, as Aileen Campbell said, but that the start of the monsoon rains is imminent, it is likely that further damage will be done and further difficulties will be encountered with the transportation and distribution of relief.
Given the existing difficulties with getting aid into Burma, does the First Minister agree that it is incumbent on him, the Government and all of us to add our voice to the Disasters Emergency Committee's call for people throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom to continue to contribute? Although the raising of £600,000 is indeed laudable, the amount that has been raised overall is only about a sixth of the money that was raised in similar circumstances following the tsunami.
Briefly, please.
Understandably, people are concerned about whether the money will go to the right causes, but, as I said, it is incumbent on all of us to encourage everyone we know to contribute. Does the First Minister agree?
I fully agree with Patricia Ferguson's remarks. It is incumbent on all of us to encourage the process. It is equally incumbent on all of us to do whatever we can to persuade the Burmese Government to allow the assistance to go to those who so vitally and badly need it. Patricia Ferguson's remarks are well made and I fully support them.
Age of Consent
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government supports the proposals of the Scottish Law Commission on the age of sexual consent for 13 to 16-year-olds. (S3F-789)
This is a complex and sensitive area of law. It is vital that the law protects and promotes the welfare of our children and young people. We are considering the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations for reform of the law on sexual offences in the light of the responses that we received to our recent consultation. We will introduce a bill on rape and sexual offences later in the year.
Labour members raised our concerns on the matter during a recent debate on rape and sexual offences. Worried parents have been waiting for the Government to clarify its position on the matter, which is a sensitive one, as the First Minister said. Has the Cabinet discussed the matter? Does the First Minister agree that, although the law is not perfect, such a change, however it was framed, might be seen as a relaxation of the law, which would send mixed signals to our young people? The previous Scottish Executive set targets to reduce pregnancy rates among girls under the age of 16 by 20 per cent by 2010. Does this Government remain committed to reducing our high rates of teenage pregnancies, particularly among disadvantaged young people?
The answer to the second part of the question is yes.
As Pauline McNeill knows, the Labour Party manifesto contained a commitment to act on the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. As a Government and as a Parliament, we will act on the recommendations. However, that does not necessarily mean that we have to accept every recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission.
The Cabinet has held long discussions on these matters. Despite the apparently varying contributions to the consultation, I am confident that this Parliament can find a way of acting in a responsible manner that will meet our objectives.
On 6 March, Pauline McNeill asked a question on this issue in the chamber and said that she wanted to discuss it further. We will be delighted to do so. This is a sensitive subject and we would do well as a Parliament to act together.
The First Minister clearly recognises the sensitivity of this subject; and it is a subject that we would normally expect to deal with during the parliamentary progress of the bill that the First Minister has said will be forthcoming. In view of serious public concerns, does the First Minister not agree that it would be helpful if the Scottish Government gave its definitive view? I hope that it would be a view that reassured the many parents who are seriously concerned about some of the terms in the Scottish Law Commission's report.
Our view will come out as we publish the bill. I also undertake to discuss the issues in a collegiate fashion with members on all sides of the chamber, to ensure that we, as a Parliament, handle this sensitive issue extremely well.
Bill Aitken will have read the consultation and the various submissions to it. He will have read opinions that range widely—even among organisations that one would normally expect to share the same opinion. Whether those opinions came from Scotland's commissioner for children and young people, Barnardo's, Childline, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration or the Church of Scotland, or—on the other side of the debate—from other faith organisations, or from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland or a number of other organisations, one thing that we should accept, despite the variety of views, is that all those organisations were contributing and were trying to arrive at the best solution in terms of reform of the law for Scotland as a community.
We will publish our view with the bill. However, if we all approach the matter as those organisations have approached it, recognising that—whatever the variety of views—we are working in the best interests of the children and young people of Scotland, we as a Parliament will raise ourselves in the public esteem, rather than the contrary.
The difference in maturity between a child of 13 and a 16-year-old is vast. I wonder whether the First Minister shares my concern that lowering the age of consent to within that age range will be normalising abuse.
The proposal is not to lower the age of consent; that is not even the proposal of the Scottish Law Commission. Some discussion in the papers has suggested that the proposal might impinge on sexual assault—cases where there has been no consent. It does not, of course. Sexual assault is a crime regardless of the age of the perpetrator.
People on both sides of the debate are contributing in the best interests of the people. When we publish the bill and the recommendations, we will make the information available so that we can discuss it in this chamber.
I am confident that we can find a method of achieving our objectives. People on both sides of the debate have misgivings, but I hope and believe that we can reassure them. We have discussed this matter at enormous length in Cabinet and elsewhere and I believe that this Parliament can find a way forward that will carry opinion in Scotland with us and which is in the best interests of Scotland's young people.
Age-restricted Goods
To ask the First Minister what assistance the Scottish Government plans to give to local authorities in their efforts to curb both the purchasing of age-restricted goods, such as alcohol, by underage persons and the proxy purchasing of such goods by adults for underage persons. (S3F-773)
As is evident from our decision to roll out alcohol test-purchasing arrangements across Scotland, cracking down on illegal sales of age-restricted goods such as alcohol is a key priority for the Scottish Government.
The Scottish Government has increased the level of funding made available to local authorities by 13.1 per cent over the comprehensive spending review period, and we have increased the police grant by 9 per cent for the same period, to enable them to enforce the law effectively.
I am sure that the First Minister will join me in congratulating those shopkeepers, large and small, who have already put in efforts to ensure that the law is properly administered. Is the First Minister aware of the retail crime survey recently conducted by the Scottish Grocers Federation, which draws attention to the continued intimidation and abuse of sales assistants in relation to the enforcement of age restrictions? The survey, of 553 stores, found 165 incidents of physical violence against staff and 1,269 incidents of verbal abuse. How does the First Minister intend to support retailers in enforcing the law regarding age-restricted products in that environment?
I am aware of the survey. I should have said that, in addition to the funding levels that I mentioned, there is record investment over the next three years of £120 million for tackling alcohol misuse. We are continuing to work with local authorities and the police to ensure that everything possible is done to tackle illegal sales. We will shortly be making an announcement about providing specific resources to local authorities to enable them to step up the enforcement of the tobacco sales law. I therefore hope that Alex Johnstone will accept that a great deal is being done in Government to tackle what is a serious concern, and that we will do it effectively and properly.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is a matter of regret that I have to raise with you that this morning the Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell, misled the chamber in his statement on equality. The minister's statement claimed, in relation to the abolition of the graduate endowment fee, that it will benefit
"particularly those on lower incomes, such as disabled people and lone parents".
However, the policy memorandum to the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill, which I presume the minister has read, says:
"Not all Scottish and non-UK EU students are liable to pay the GE. There are a number of exemptions, including lone parents and those who are in receipt of the Disabled Students' Allowance".
I seek your guidance on what action you can take and, through you, ask the First Minister to deal with that evident breach of the ministerial code and to instruct his minister to come to the chamber as soon as possible to explain why he misled Parliament and to clarify his statement.
I thank the member for giving me prior notice of the point of order—I very much appreciate that. While I understand the point that she is trying to make, as I have stated many times previously, it is not the role of the Presiding Officer to establish the veracity of statements made by ministers. I refer the member to the announcement that I made about that in the Business Bulletin of 22 November last year, in which she will find advice that issues of this nature are a matter for the ministerial code. If she wishes to pursue the matter, she should take it up—as I think that she has already hinted that she will do—with the First Minister, under the ministerial code.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—