First Minister's Question Time
Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1784)
For the rest of the day I have a range of engagements to carry forward the Government's programme for Scotland.
I would like to start by thanking the Calman commission on behalf of this Parliament for its report "Serving Scotland Better", which was published this week. I look forward to debating the Calman report next week.
Today, I want to ask the First Minister about the problems that he seems to have in exercising the powers that this Parliament already has. We have the power to make our bill on climate change the most ambitious in the world. Indeed, the First Minister promised that we would. Has the First Minister not told us that Scotland won the lottery of life in renewables potential and that we are the Saudi Arabia of the seas?
The United Kingdom target is to reduce carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020. At the moment, the Scottish target is the same. Does the First Minister agree that devolution and our green potential mean that we can be more ambitious than that?
Let me start, as ever, in a generous mode. I welcome the sensible Calman commission proposals for devolution of control of our own elections in Scotland and devolution of important road safety issues—the alcohol limit and the speed limit. Those are important matters and I see no reason for any further delay in getting them implemented—since we all now agree on them.
We should recall that, but for the Scottish National Party victory, there would have been no change at all. How do we know that? Because, in a speech he made in East Lothian before the 2007 election, my predecessor sent his troops into battle on a no-change platform. Only two weeks ago, we saw what the people of East Lothian thought of no-change positions from the Labour Party.
With the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, we have the most ambitious legislation in the world. It is true that our interim 2020 target is 34 per cent, as it is in Westminster, but did Iain Gray not notice the implementation plan that was outlined in such spectacular detail yesterday? It pointed out that even within the powers of this Parliament at the present moment we can implement up to 36 per cent. Of course, if we had more powers—the powers of an independent Parliament—we could do even more.
If it is true that, as it stands, this Parliament's Climate Change (Scotland) Bill is the most ambitious in the world, why did Duncan McLaren of Friends of the Earth Scotland say this morning:
"As drafted Scotland's Bill would not lead to tougher targets than the UK's and is therefore not world-leading."
He went on to say that
"in terms of the key issue of the interim target for 2020, it is the target set under the UK Act that is currently world-leading."
That was this morning, after the publication of the delivery plan. Will the First Minister just admit that his climate change bill is following, not leading, the United Kingdom? Then perhaps we can do something about it.
Iain Gray should acknowledge that we have led the UK and have led internationally in introducing the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.
Iain Gray is less than generous with the quotations that have been made following the publication of the delivery plan. In a news release yesterday, Dr Richard Dixon of Stop Climate Chaos said:
"New commitments on decarbonising the energy and transport sectors are particularly welcome. The SNP have gone further than the Westminster government by making these … promises."
Iain Gray will have to explain not only why we have dragged Westminster in our wake in this crucial issue, but why he, Calman and the Conservatives—I am not so sure about the Liberals—do not want to transfer the powers to this Parliament that would enable us to be even more ambitious in what we do to tackle climate change.
I want to be more ambitious in what we do to tackle climate change but we can do that with the powers that the Parliament already has. This morning, Richard Dixon said:
"There is no reason that Scotland should do 34% just because the UK is doing 34%. Devolution is about Scotland being able to play to its strengths and set its own targets."
Not only the environmental lobby thinks that; Ian Marchant, the chair of Scottish and Southern Energy—Scotland's biggest company—today calls for
"at least 40 per cent"
and says:
"every single additional percentage point will see more jobs for Scotland."
The truth is that the Parliament has the power to do better right now. The question is, does the First Minister have the will to do that or is he just all wind?
The Parliament has the power to set a target but unless we get control over the powers that will enable us to get to the more ambitious target, we will not be able to achieve it. That is why the delivery plan set it out in such detail this morning.
I shall give Iain Gray an example, because I know that he wants to understand what type of power we need. Two years ago, Ian Marchant's company, Scottish and Southern Energy, in conjunction with BP, had a plan to build the first commercially sized carbon capture station in the world at Peterhead. The Scottish Government sanctioned that, but the support mechanism lay with Westminster and Alistair Darling vetoed it.
If the power had been with us, we would now have the world's first carbon capture station moving into production. Instead, under the timid approach of Iain Gray, that wonderful project has gone to Abu Dhabi—an independent country with the power to manage its own resources.
That is all just bluster and excuse.
The First Minister has repeatedly promised us the most ambitious climate change bill in the world, delivered through the Parliament's powers—rightly so, because climate change is the single biggest threat to our future. Churches, students, trade unionists, business leaders, bird watchers, cyclists, gardeners, the Women's Institute and the people at home all look to us to be ambitious on climate change. Many of our schools fly the green environmental flag and our children need us to be ambitious on climate change.
This afternoon, the Labour Party will lodge an amendment to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill that will increase Scotland's target for carbon reduction to 40 per cent by 2020 and direct ministers to seek the advice of the UK's top climate change experts to come up with an action plan for Scotland. Surely we can do better with the advantages that we have in Scotland. Between us, the First Minister and I have the votes to do that deal here and now. Is he ambitious enough for Scotland to do it now?
Iain Gray talks about ambition; we already have the advice of the world's top climate change experts.
Professor Jan Bebbington, the vice chair of the Sustainable Development Commission Scotland, said this morning:
"The Delivery Plan"—
that is the SNP Government's delivery plan—
"shows that it is possible to fulfil very ambitious climate change targets but not without business and civil society backing the Government's efforts."
One other thing is required: the powers—which I have outlined in enormous detail so that Iain Gray understands them—to enable us to move to the 40 per cent target.
This Government and this Parliament led the way on the 80 per cent target while Westminster was stuck at 60 per cent. We are the first country in the world to measure and promise to report on emissions from goods and services consumed in its borders. Given the line of Iain Gray's questioning, I take it that we will revisit the Calman commission so that the Labour Party and Conservative party will accept—as I think the Liberal Democrats do—the increase in powers that is required to enable Scotland not only to set the target of 40 per cent but to deliver it within the powers of an independent and autonomous Parliament.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1785)
I can give a very specific answer to that: I shall meet the secretary of state next Tuesday.
Today, this Parliament unites to close the ludicrous loophole, which has arisen out of the European convention on human rights, that allows Scottish prisoners an open-ended period of time within which to make slopping-out claims. That loophole has been costly for Scotland and an affront to many victims and their families.
However, the storm clouds are gathering again. Senior lawyers have warned of dire consequences for Scotland's criminal justice system following a ruling by Europe's highest court that any evidence or confession given to police in the absence of a lawyer is not admissible in court. What steps has the First Minister taken to assess the potential impact of that ruling on Scotland?
I know that, last night, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice spoke to the Lord Advocate. We are constantly vigilant to ensure that the Scottish criminal justice system maintains its integrity and that its ability to work for the people of Scotland is fulfilled.
Just as we have been successful in many areas of justice, we have successfully found ways of pursuing what the people of Scotland would see as fair and equitable in the administration of justice. Indeed, after considerable delays by Westminster, the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill that Annabel Goldie has cited will be successful—and I am grateful for the cross-party support for the bill, which will be agreed to this afternoon. I just wish that we had been able to introduce it earlier—but, of course, that would have required everyone in elected office to understand the importance of such matters.
It is precisely because of the challenges in the past in addressing slopping out, to which the First Minister has just referred and in respect of which the previous Executive was undoubtedly caught exposed and unprepared, that I think it important for the First Minister to give some indication of the Government's contingency plans if the European ruling is ultimately incorporated into Scots law. What is he doing to protect the public purse and, more important, the safety of our communities and the peace of mind of victims and their families?
As Annabel Goldie well knows, the bill that we are uniting to pass today will have a substantial effect in protecting the public purse in Scotland. In fact, in addition to ensuring what most people will see as an equitable distribution of human rights and justice for the entire community, that is one of the reasons for introducing it. Indeed, it is one of its main aims. As with judicial systems across western Europe, the Scottish judicial system faces constant challenges from not just one thing but a range of matters, and our law officers and our Cabinet Secretary for Justice are always alert and vigilant in ensuring that the system has the ability and freedom to pursue the judicial process in a way that most if not all of us would find compatible not just with human rights but with the equitable performance of a judicial system.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet (S3F-1786)
The next meeting of Cabinet will, as always, discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
In eight weeks' time, 180 children will start their first day at secondary school at Inverurie academy. Will any of those children have a new school built for them in Inverurie before they sit their standard grades?
I cannot predict which schools will be part of the ambitious schools programme that was announced yesterday by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and it would be improper of me to do so, but I know that around the country a variety of local authorities have identified many schools as suitable candidates for inclusion in such a programme.
Of course, this new £1.2 billion programme comes as a substantial bonus. After all, as the cabinet secretary reminded the chamber yesterday, it is in addition to the 250 schools that will be built or substantially refurbished in this Administration's term of office. I wish that that figure were more but—and I see that Margaret Smith has got to where I am going before I even get there myself—I point out that 250 is rather more than the mere 200 built under the previous Administration that, unfortunately, Tavish Scott supported.
Is that it? The First Minister ignored the point; 180 children and their parents will be very surprised that he does not know, will not say or—as usual—thinks that it is someone else's job. Aberdeenshire Council has had plans ready for two years, while it has waited for schools funding from the Government, but the Government has wasted two years failing to get the Scottish Futures Trust to work—two years of blind alleys, garden paths and dead ends. Two years of delay should have given ministers time to answer the basic question about which schools will be built. Some children will wait a decade for a new Scottish National Party school. Will that include Inverurie?
As I said, 250 schools will be substantially refurbished or built under this Administration. In addition, there is the new schools programme.
I know that Tavish Scott is interested in the ministerial code. He is less interested in apologising after, having referred the First Minister under the ministerial code, his case was found to be wanting. However, even Tavish Scott should acknowledge that if I stood up and committed to a school in my constituency instead of going through the established process, he would be the very first to refer me under the ministerial code. I am astonished, because Tavish Scott has been a minister and presumably faced the same issues of constituency interest and ministerial responsibilities when he was in office.
As to whether Tavish Scott's argument about a delay introducing the schools programme has any substance, I was struck by the question and decided to examine the history of the Parliament. I know that members love it when I look back at the records of the Parliament. I decided to look at when the first schools programme was introduced by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, in the first session. It was 25 June 2002—three years into their first term of office. Not only have we beaten them with 250 schools as against 200, we have beaten them by a year in introducing a new schools programme.
The First Minister will be aware of the devastating effect on my constituents of yesterday's announcement that the 120 people who work for QinetiQ, the Ministry of Defence's contractor in Uist, will lose their jobs. What representations will the Scottish Government make to the United Kingdom Government about that body blow by UK ministers to an already fragile island economy?
Total hypocrisy. There would be no MOD jobs in an independent Scotland.
Order.
What action will be taken in Scotland to address the needs of the people who are most directly affected by the announcement?
First, I say to some Labour members that one thing that I have never done in politics is criticise when a member talks about jobs in their constituency. I will never do that to a Labour member. I will never do it to a member of any other party. In a Parliament, when a constituency member asks about jobs in their constituency, it is a matter of civility that they should be heard with some respect.
There was a substantial lack of consultation from the Ministry of Defence in relation to yesterday's announcement. I shall ensure that representations are made to the Westminster Government to enable it to understand fully the impact on fragile communities of announcements of major job losses. We have worked extremely hard to support the creation of jobs in the Western Isles, with some success. In the past few weeks, 40 jobs have been created at BiFab, at the Arnish yard.
Meanwhile, the UK Government appears to be abandoning the islands and their communities. Yesterday, the MP for the Western Isles requested an emergency debate in the UK Parliament. I can announce today that Jim Mather, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy, and Tourism, has already agreed to set up a task force, alongside Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local council. The Scottish Government and those partners, in a united front, will do everything possible to protect the economy and the fragile communities of the Western Isles.
Influenza A(H1N1)
I am sure that the First Minister and members will join me in extending deep sympathy to the family and friends of Jacqueline Fleming, who recently died of swine flu in Paisley's—
Mr Wilson, I do not disagree with you, but you must ask the question as lodged on the paper.
To ask the First Minister what steps are being taken to limit the spread of the influenza A(H1N1) virus. (S3F-1801)
I know that the whole chamber will want to take the opportunity to express sympathy to the family of Jacqueline Fleming in their tragic loss, both of Jacqueline and of course of her baby.
Scotland is among the best prepared countries in the world to respond to a flu pandemic. We experienced the first cases of H1N1 in the United Kingdom some eight weeks ago. Throughout the current outbreak, national health boards, Health Protection Scotland and their partner agencies have ensured that all necessary arrangements are in place to attempt to limit the spread of the virus. The risk to the general public remains low and the vast majority of those who get the virus display relatively mild symptoms. However, as the tragic death of Jacqueline Fleming at the weekend has shown, for a variety of reasons—usually underlying health reasons—some people are particularly susceptible to this dangerous virus.
Is the First Minister aware of the concern that has been expressed that the narrow criteria that are used for testing H1N1 in many European countries will result in a significant number of cases going undetected, leading to community spread being underestimated? Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish approach to testing should take account of that concern?
I suspect—indeed, I know—that the Scottish approach to testing is the most thorough in the world. We have not only been very active in containing the present outbreak; we have achieved that through the substantial testing of thousands of possible cases. We are testing more people with well-developed algorithms that mean that the data that have been derived for surveillance purposes have been better and the process has been more efficient than has been the case in most other countries. I understand that other countries in Europe are not taking the same active approach to containment and are not testing so actively for H1N1. Nevertheless, I think that we are taking the right approach. It is vital that we know the full extent of the spread of the virus; hence our commitment to continued testing at this stage. It is clear that, with our wide-ranging system of testing, Scotland is at the forefront of efforts to stem the flow of the disease.
I agree with the First Minister that continued testing will tell us more about the epidemiology of this novel virus, but as we will experience a course of events similar to those of previous pandemics—a modest first wave and a much more widespread second wave in the autumn—what steps are being taken now to assist small and medium-sized businesses, especially non-statutory organisations that provide care in the community, to prepare for that second wave so that continuity of care will be ensured for our most vulnerable citizens if we experience a severe second wave?
Social partners across Scotland—not just in the business community, but other key social partners—are fully involved in the resilience planning process. I am grateful for Richard Simpson's strong support—which is echoed across the chamber—on the issue. I hope that he will acknowledge the fact that the Deputy First Minister has been keeping people fully informed on a political level since the start of the outbreak. That has also happened with social partners—not just the business community, but local government and a range of other social partners—in terms of our contingency planning.
Richard Simpson will know that we are pursuing a strategy of containment. We will contain the virus as long as we possibly can. He will also know that, in conjunction with the other UK health authorities, we have ordered supplies of the vaccine, which will be ready towards the end of the year.
I know that Jacqueline Fleming had serious underlying health problems, but pregnant NHS staff may feel that they are at higher risk than other front-line workers. I therefore ask the First Minister to consider authorising risk assessments on front-line NHS staff who are pregnant, to ensure that they are as safe as they can be at their work. In doing so, will he bear in mind the fact that, as we are unsure of the side effects of Tamiflu on mothers and unborn children, there may be an increased risk of complications in pregnancy, of premature birth or of miscarriage?
I assure Bob Doris that guidance on infection control for pregnant women who work in the NHS already exists and will be followed in the treatment of persons who are suspected of having the virus. If such women suspect that they may have the virus themselves, they follow the advice that is given to all pregnant women to seek a medical opinion and appropriate treatment. It should be understood that, although pregnancy can make people more susceptible to viruses under certain conditions, in the tragic case of Jacqueline Fleming, which has been well documented, there were underlying medical problems as well. I note that Bob Doris framed his question in such a way as not to give the impression that her pregnancy was the only underlying health condition involved in that tragic case.
Commission on Scottish Devolution
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government welcomes the conclusion in the final report of the Calman commission on Scottish devolution that devolution has been a real success and is popular with the people of Scotland. (S3F-1796)
Yes, I think that this Parliament is popular with the people of Scotland. Not only that, we know that the Parliament is more popular now than it was under the previous Administration. We know that because of the excellent Scottish social attitudes survey, which has shown shoring respect—
Shoring?
Shoring and soaring—I may be meeting Sean Connery later on today. [Laughter.]
For example, the survey found that the proportion who trust the Scottish Government to act in Scotland's interests "just about always" or "most of the time" increased from the—in my opinion—relatively high level of 51 per cent in 2006 to a more fulsome 71 per cent during the term of office of the current Administration. That suggests to me that the people of Scotland, as they indicated in last week's election results, trust this Government—in stark contrast to Labour, the Conservatives and, unfortunately, the Liberals, who seem unable to trust the people of Scotland with determining their own future—to stand up for Scotland.
Surely the First Minister should act, and be seen to act, for the whole of Scotland, not just the nationalist cause, when it comes to Scotland's future. Perhaps he could start by welcoming the Calman proposals on strengthening financial accountability by the setting of a new Scottish income tax rate. How will he demonstrate that his Government is able to work in the wider interests of Scotland, which favours devolution? Does he fear that an SNP Government will no longer be able to blame Westminster for the levels of public spending?
I cannot believe that Pauline McNeill listened to my first answer to Iain Gray, when I was so anxious to say that those powers that Calman proposed that were until recently opposed by Labour—the devolution of our own elections, of drink-driving limits and of the right to legislate on firearms so that we can restrict and ban airguns in Scotland—are welcome and, now that we have consensus, should be implemented now.
On the guts of the proposal, is Pauline McNeill really telling us that the ability to vary a tax set by the Treasury is the same as control over taxation across the resources and revenue of Scotland? Does she really mistake that incredibly modest taxation proposal for the full panoply of powers that an independent—or, indeed, financially autonomous—Government and Parliament would have? If she thinks that the proposal is a reason for debate, why on earth will she not trust the people of Scotland with determining that in a full-scale referendum?
As to whether we are the Scottish National Party or the national party of Scotland, is it not the case that our European elections victory the length and breadth of the country at least puts forward a partial claim to our being truly a national party?
Prison Sentences
To ask the First Minister how many sentences of six months or less were imposed by the courts in the 12 months to 1 May 2009 and what the average time served was. (S3F-1797)
Twelve thousand six hundred and forty-six sentences of six months or less were handed down during 2007-08. The average time served by prisoners who were liberated during that period was 40 days.
Three out of four of those who are sentenced to six months or less in prison will—on current and recent statistics—offend again within two years, compared with just 42 per cent of those on community service. That is why we have introduced legislative proposals for a presumption against prison sentences of six months or less.
The First Minister did not reply to the question, which related to a later period, but let us leave that aside.
The First Minister seeks to justify the ludicrous proposal to restrict the courts' powers to impose short prison sentences by saying that the short periods served allow no time to have an impact on a prisoner's pattern of offending. Does he not realise that many offenders spend such a low proportion of their sentence in custody because of his Government's early release policies, which mean that, in the past 12 months, many offenders who were sentenced to six months served only six weeks, or a quarter of their sentence, in custody? Surely that is an affront to justice.
I gave Bill Aitken the most recent statistics that are available. I was trying to be as helpful as possible. However, I cannot let him get away with talking about early release given that it is well known and documented that the Conservative party formed the Government that introduced automatic early release in Scotland and the current Administration is introducing legislation to end it.
I know that, particularly in these days when Michael Forsyth has re-entered the political debate in Scotland, Bill Aitken does not want to look back to the dark days when Mr Forsyth was the Secretary of State for Scotland and prison absconds from the open estate were running at eight times their level last year under the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, but I had a wee look at something that I know both Bill Aitken and I feel is important—I looked at the average time for which people went to prison for knife crime in Scotland in the last year of the Conservative Government. Under the tutelage of Michael Forsyth as secretary of state, it was 115 days. Ten years later, it had increased to 217 days.
I am sure that most people in the chamber regard knife crime as a serious offence that requires a serious sentence. Has it occurred to Bill Aitken that a sentence of 115 days for knife crime under the Tories is less than six months and that 217 days is more than six months? People who commit serious crimes should be sentenced to serious periods of time and not as they were under the soft touch of Michael Forsyth.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—