Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, November 18, 2010

Official Report 1090KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive Question Time

---

General Questions

---

Hospitals (Free Parking)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to revise its decision to introduce free parking at hospital car parks. (S3O-12046)

There are no plans to revise the decision to introduce free parking at NHS Scotland-operated car parks.

It is obvious that the cabinet secretary is unaware of the chaos that the Government’s instruction to end car parking charges has caused at Aberdeen royal infirmary. The ARI has the barriers, the machines and the staff available to issue passes for people who genuinely need to use the car park free of charge, but it has simply thrown open the gates and allowed shoppers and everyone else to park there for the whole day, which prevents the elderly and the sick who have to use their cars to travel in from rural Aberdeenshire from accessing the ARI. Will she accept an invitation to join me at the ARI’s car park and see the problem at first hand?

I have visited the ARI many times. Mike Rumbles is perfectly entitled to argue for the reintroduction of car parking charges and I will let him do that if he so desires. The abolition of charges was right and it is wrong to ask people to pay to park in hospital car parks.

That was not the point.

I am coming to the point that I thought Mike Rumbles made.

The abolition of charges did not remove health boards’ responsibility to manage car parks and car parking. As Mike Rumbles and all of us know, a feature of the society in which we live is that demand for hospital car parks and other car parks often outstrips supply. Many health boards, such as NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, have put in place policies to manage car parks, which are often unpopular but are required to avoid the problems that he identified. I suggest that Mike Rumbles discusses with his local health board the appropriate measures to put in place to manage car parking better and deal with the problems that he identified.

I welcome the abolition of car parking charges at national health service hospitals. Will the cabinet secretary reassure me that we will not return to the provisions that the previous Labour and Lib Dem Executive laid, under which nurses would have paid £12 a day to park at hospitals?

I assure Bob Doris that, as I said, the Government has no intention to reintroduce car parking charges at NHS-operated car parks. As he said, we inherited a proposal for car parking charges of £12 in parts of the country. First, we reduced and capped such charges; then we abolished them.

I repeat that it is important to have well-managed car parks, so that those who need to use them can access spaces. That sometimes leads to other initiatives that are unpopular but which—unfortunately—are necessary to deal with the issues that have been raised.

Is the cabinet secretary aware that one consequence of the volume of cars that are parking at Aberdeen royal infirmary is pressure on parking on nearby streets? Does she recognise that something has gone wrong when my constituents must pay up to £200 a year to park at their own doors while parking at the hospital site is free? Will she talk to NHS Grampian and Aberdeen City Council to try to put that right?

I will always discuss such issues with health boards and I encourage Lewis Macdonald as a local member—as I encouraged Mike Rumbles—to do the same. The problem is serious in parts of the country and particularly in cities, and I do not take away from the point that Lewis Macdonald made, but it does not take much working out.

Many more cars are on the roads these days than car parking spaces can take, not just in the health service but in other sectors. That makes it all the more important that we as a Government encourage people to have alternative routes to work, but that also means that—as I have said—health boards must do what they can to manage their car parks as best they can. I will continue to encourage health boards to do that and I am sure that the local members who have made points today will do likewise.

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

---

Public Service Design (Disabled Access)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it has taken to ensure that public services such as health services are made fully accessible to disabled people, particularly when new facilities are designed. (S3O-12001)

Building regulations apply to all new building work and seek to ensure that new buildings are accessible to as wide a range of people as possible. To deliver accessible environments, new planning regulations for national and major developments were introduced last year.

In the last session of the Parliament, the Equal Opportunities Committee undertook a comprehensive review of the barriers that face people with disabilities. One issue that people raised was access to buildings, particularly old buildings. People were very clear that new buildings should be accessible. In our wonderful new hospital in Larbert—it is a wonderful hospital—the barriers still exist. There are heavy doors in the outpatient department and physiotherapy units, poor signage and problems with the loop system—

Question, please.

In line with the disability discrimination legislation requirements, will the cabinet secretary ensure that future planning for new builds is fully equality proofed?

Cathy Peattie is right to make reference to the Disability Discrimination Acts. Health boards are as bound by those acts as any other public agencies are. I have made it clear that the new planning regulations are designed to ensure that all new buildings are as accessible as possible.

Like Cathy Peattie, I put on record what a wonderful new hospital the new Forth Valley royal hospital at Larbert is. If there are issues of the kind that Cathy Peattie has identified, I will be happy to raise them with the health board. I encourage Cathy Peattie to do that as well, as the local member. I am sure that she will find the board receptive to responding to the issues as constructively as possible.

---

Flooding (Edinburgh)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to protect communities in Edinburgh from flooding. (S3O-11970)

We are helping to protect communities across Scotland from flooding by working with our partners to implement the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and providing funding through the local government settlement for local authorities to continue to invest in flood prevention schemes. As the member knows, that includes the City of Edinburgh Council.

I welcome the work on early warning that the minister has put in place. My constituents are really worried about the delay to the flood management works in Edinburgh; they worry every time that we have prolonged rain. Will the minister agree to meet me to discuss the funding shortfall in Edinburgh, which the City of Edinburgh Council tells me is the result of changes in Government funding that her predecessor put in place? Will she meet me to see whether there is any prospect of finding a solution to accelerate the speed of the works, which are now spread into three phases? My constituents do not even have the certainty of a start date for the phase 2 elements of the works, never mind the phase 3 part.

I am always happy to meet members who have particular concerns. The member need only ask and we will arrange a meeting. The question allows me to remind the chamber that, from 1999 to 2007, spending on flooding in Scotland was only £5.5 million per annum. In 2007-08, it went to £32.5 million and from 2008 to 2010, £42 million per year was included in the local government settlement for flood funding. I am always astonished when Labour members ask questions about flood funding, given that history.

I have only just opened the Braid burn flood prevention scheme in Edinburgh. As the member knows, the Water of Leith scheme is progressing—[Interruption.]

Order.

It has already received money and will continue to receive support. That support will be wrapped up in the global local government settlement, the details of which will be announced shortly.

---

Policing (Budgetary Pressure)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to protect front-line policing from budgetary pressures. (S3O-11972) [Interruption.]

Before we hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, I suggest that members who wish to have conversations might like to do so outwith the chamber—unless they are answering or asking a question.

We are determined to put front-line services first. That is why we will maintain police officer numbers at their current level, which is at least 1,000 more than when we came into power. It is also why we are examining the options for more fundamental reform of our police service to put bobbies before boundaries and to ensure that the excellent policing we have now is sustainable into the future.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, on his watch, the justice portfolio has taken the biggest cut in percentage terms of all departments at 13.3 per cent. Given that fact, and that police boards have announced cuts that the Scottish Police Federation has said are equivalent to reducing police numbers by 2,900 and that Mr Swinney’s budget outlined a £31 million cut in the central Government grant to the police, where will the money come from to maintain police numbers? How will the cabinet secretary assure police boards that Mr Swinney’s plan will sustain the funding to maintain new recruits, when Mr Swinney himself has refused to set out a three-year budget?

I refer Mr Butler not only to the comments that my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth made, but to the press release and comments from the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation. The Scottish Parliament welcomed the commitments that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has made, which the police have accepted and, indeed, welcomed. Those who continually talk down Scotland and continually talk up other matters in the face of the highest-ever number of police officers in Scotland and the lowest recorded crime in 32 years should recognise a good thing when a good thing is announced.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary agrees that police support staff play a vital role in forces across Scotland. Indeed, they are key to allowing police to get out on to our streets and to do the job instead of being stuck behind the counter on administration work. Police support officers in my constituency—

Question, please.

—are concerned that their jobs may be cut. What support is the cabinet secretary giving to staff who support our police?

I conjoin with Cathie Craigie in saying how excellent police support staff are. We are aware of their concerns as a result of the budgets that boards have provisionally brought in. Given the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth’s announcement, many of the apocalyptic views that were voiced by some—certainly those on Opposition benches—will be shown to be groundless. Indeed, I look forward to police forces looking forward to recruiting more and securing the position of those who give service as uniformed officers or in the back room.

Question 6 was due to be asked by Bill Kidd, but he is not in the chamber. Members are aware of my disapproval of that. In this case, it is exemplified by the fact that we are all deprived of hearing Jamie Stone’s supplementary question, which I now cannot call him to ask.

---

Carloway Review (Remit)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has agreed a remit for Lord Carloway’s review, which was announced in the context of the emergency legislation on the detention of suspects. (S3O-12037)

Yes. The finalised terms of reference for Lord Carloway’s review of law and practice have been agreed and published. A copy has been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre under bib number 52072.

In doing so, did the cabinet secretary consult outside interests on the terms of the remit? For example, did he consult the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which was so shortsightedly ignored in the passage of the emergency legislation? He did not consult Opposition spokespeople on the issue. Who did he consult in arriving at the remit?

I consulted Lord Carloway. At the end of the day, the remit is Lord Carloway’s. We consulted him on the matter and he suggested some changes, which we accepted. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to seek to undermine the position of a High Court judge who was nominated by the Lord President to carry out a significant review into the law, practice and evidence that we have in Scotland.

Obviously, Lord Carloway will take on board those from other bodies to give him advice—we will discuss that with him—and he may, or may not, choose to select Mr Brown as one of them. I would have thought that Lord Carloway will take on board those from the defence agencies, the Law Society of Scotland, police officers and others with a remit. We should accept the significant stature of Lord Carloway and allow him to get on with his difficult job, which we expect him to deal with as expeditiously as possible given its critical nature in our criminal justice system.

---

Licensed Premises (Oversubscribed Areas)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on local authorities refusing additional alcohol licences in areas deemed to be oversubscribed in licensed premises. (S3O-12031)

Effective enforcement of existing laws is part of the Government’s alcohol framework for action and we encourage licensing boards to use their powers to their full extent. That is particularly important when alcohol misuse costs Scotland £3.56 billion every year, or £900 for every adult. The World Health Organization considers that restricting availability is one of the key ways of reducing consumption and harm, and availability of alcohol can be addressed by increasing price and by restricting outlet density.

The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 requires licensing boards to adopt a proactive approach to the overprovision of licensed premises. Having established such a policy, the board is in a position to refuse an application that has been made for premises in the localities that it has decided are overprovided for. The board must still, of course, consider each case on its merits and within the context of its overprovision policy.

The cabinet secretary will know that West Dunbartonshire Council decided recently to refuse to issue new alcohol licences in areas of overprovision. Will he encourage other councils in Scotland to consider taking that positive step to combat problems of alcohol abuse and easy access to the purchase of alcohol?

The member makes a valid point. I have heard about what West Dunbartonshire Council is doing. The council is acting within its remit to protect its communities from the harm that alcohol can do. It has also done extensive research into the medical harm that alcohol does and into its consequences for justice, society and the community in West Dunbartonshire. I support fully the drive and desire of West Dunbartonshire licensing board and the council as a whole to take steps to protect themselves. I do not doubt that other licensing boards will consider such measures. Where licensing boards take steps to protect their communities from the oversupply, excessive availability and—despite what has happened recently—ridiculous pricing of alcohol, they will have our full support.

The cabinet secretary is right to point to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, which enabled action to be taken on overprovision and to restrict the availability of licences. However, he will be aware that not all licensing boards are adopting such measures fully. Will he commit himself to monitoring implementation of those and other measures for which the 2005 act provides and to publishing a report setting out the progress that has been made on the act’s use?

I am surprised that Jackie Baillie should raise that issue. The 2005 act was brought in by the previous Liberal-Labour Administration. There are some difficulties associated with it, but we supported it when we were in opposition because we thought that that was the right direction in which to go; if only others who are in opposition now would show the same sense and look to the national interest.

We have reviewed some matters. Immediately after we came into office, we were lobbied by the police about the fit and proper person test. We reinstated that immediately, because there were issues that needed to be addressed. In the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill, which was passed recently, we have taken action to deal with issues relating to licensing. We can review, consult and take all sorts of steps, but at the end of the day tackling the problem of alcohol abuse in Scotland requires three Rs. First, alcohol must be consumed responsibly; we are on a journey in that regard. Secondly, it must be promoted responsibly; action has been taken in that area. Thirdly, it must be priced responsibly; shamefully, action has not been taken on that issue.

---

Youth Violence

9. To ask the Scottish Executive what is being done to tackle youth violence. (S3O-12048)

The Scottish Government is working with the violence reduction unit and other partners to tackle violent crime by young people. Recent figures published in the “Scottish Policing Performance Framework: Annual Report 2009-10” show that crimes of violence committed by young people fell by 17 per cent between 2008-09 and 2009-10. Overall levels of youth crime are down by 12 per cent over the same period, and violent crime is at its lowest level in more than 30 years.

Those successes have been achieved through a combination of tough enforcement, supported by record numbers of police officers, and innovative early intervention initiatives such as our groundbreaking no knives, better lives campaign, which has led to a 35 per cent reduction in knife carrying in Inverclyde over the period of the campaign. We have also committed £20 million to cashback for communities, with £500,000 going specifically to reducing violence.

I thank the minister for that fulsome response. He may be aware of a couple of recent cases of violence in or just outside secondary schools in Edinburgh; I am sure that he shares my concerns about those incidents. What is the Government doing with local authorities to address the issue of violence in our schools, especially our secondary schools, where it appears to be on the rise?

One initiative that the Government has taken is to encourage medics against violence, which involves volunteers from the National Health Service, in their own time, providing information to schoolchildren. Medics against violence is particularly active in Inverclyde, but the initiative is being rolled out in other parts of Scotland to warn children of the consequences of carrying a knife; for example, maxillofacial surgeons show them pictures of the consequences of a typical knife wound to the face. Medics against violence is an excellent initiative. I am pleased to say that I will support it tomorrow evening when I attend its charitable event, which is a masked ball.

Before we come to the next item of business, I know that members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery the ambassador of Iceland, His Excellency Benedikt Jónsson. [Applause.]