Plenary, 19 Mar 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, March 19, 2009

Official Report 750KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1547)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

The Parliament will wish to know that I wrote to the Opposition party leaders this morning to inform them of a joint statement that the Scottish and UK Governments are issuing at noon—right now, in fact—on the Somerville judgment. The statement announces that we have reached agreement in principle to deliver the one-year time bar in Scotland by the end of June. I hope that the Parliament will join me in welcoming that announcement and the rapid progress that has been made since the statement to Parliament last week. [Applause.]

During the budget negotiations, I suggested to the First Minister a summit of apprenticeship providers as part of a Labour package of support in the economic crisis. I welcome the announcement earlier this week that that summit will take place on 28 April.

Sadly, a further increase in unemployment was reported yesterday. Does the First Minister agree that that simply means that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that everyone—and especially our young people—is given the skills to make their way in life?

Not just yesterday's unemployment figure, but the whole economic environment means that each and every one of us must redouble, treble and focus our efforts on the economic situation in Scotland. As Iain Gray knows, we have a six-point recovery plan that contains 51 measures, many of which were suggested by social partners. Within the Scottish Parliament's powers, we are straining every sinew and obtaining best value from every pound of investment to boost the Scottish economy in these times.

Yesterday's unemployment figures show that, although Scotland has huge difficulties in the economy, what we have done has been relatively successful, as our rise in unemployment—grievous though it is—is lower than that in many other places. However, there is no room for a shred of complacency from anyone. Tough and difficult times are to come. Of course, that makes it an absolute priority that we do not—we must not—have a substantial reduction in Scottish public spending next year.

It is true that we must strain every sinew. The better, or less bad, employment situation puts us in a good position to make good another promise that the First Minister made during the budget negotiations—the apprenticeship guarantee. That is a personal guarantee to every apprentice that, if they are made redundant, they will still be able to finish their training. My constituent Lewis Doig from Tranent is in exactly that situation—he is to be made redundant and he does not know what to do. He is not alone. Lewis needs that guarantee now. Where should he go for it?

Skills Development Scotland is responsible for pursuing that guarantee. An apprenticeship guarantee was first proposed to me by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which had examined a scheme that was first developed in Northern Ireland. In the budget debate, we presented a more extensive scheme for Scotland, which Skills Development Scotland is responsible for introducing. We will deliver the scheme. That will not be easy, but it shall be done. If Iain Gray would like to write to me about his constituent's case, we can reply specifically.

Given the extent of the efforts that were made in dealing with the budget and the eventual unity that the Parliament showed in passing the budget, I hope that all parties welcome our introduction of an apprenticeship guarantee that is unrivalled in any country in the United Kingdom.

I very much welcome the guarantee, of course. I have already written to Fiona Hyslop, who is the responsible cabinet secretary, about Lewis Doig. In her reply, which I received yesterday, she said that he should contact his training provider, then Skills Development Scotland and then partnership action for continuing employment, then visit a website and then ring round his local colleges.

All those bodies and institutions existed before the First Minister gave the guarantee. Lewis is 19, has spent almost four years as an apprentice and is three months away from being a qualified joiner. However, next month, he will be out of work and his efforts will be wasted. He and all those like him do not need call sheets of places to go; they need someone whose job it is to set them up with the places that they need to finish their training. Can I tell Lewis that the First Minister will sort that out so that he can finish his training as promised?

I point out as gently as possible to Iain Gray that, when we deal with individual constituents' cases, we must ensure that each individual is treated with the respect that they deserve.

Skills Development Scotland combines a skills programme that was previously dispersed across many organisations. I would have thought that Iain Gray and all other members would welcome the introduction of the guarantee and that a letter that specifies who is responsible for ensuring that that guarantee is delivered for each individual would be the right way to go.

The measures that we have discussed are being introduced. They involve ambitious targets and will be done. One of the interesting things about the Scottish economy of late is the speed at which developments and initiatives have been introduced in it compared with economies elsewhere. I tell Iain Gray that the apprenticeship guarantee will be introduced in Scotland. I hope that, when it is, the Labour Party will welcome it with good grace.

My question is exactly about how quickly a promise that was made in the Parliament is being introduced—not quickly enough for my constituent. It is exactly about the respect that we have for young Lewis. The measure of our response to the economic crisis will be the extent to which we protect the jobs and futures of people such as him.

Today, Lewis is very close to being a qualified tradesman with a future of his own and a big contribution to make to Scotland's future. I do not want him to be part of next month's unemployment figures and I do not believe that the First Minister does either, but he will be unless the First Minister makes good his guarantee now. The First Minister has 5,000 officials; will he give just one of them the job of matching such young apprentices with the opportunity to finish their training?

That is exactly the responsibility of Skills Development Scotland, which is why this Government set it up. It will be done and implemented.

I have every sympathy for young Lewis. We will ensure that his case is looked at and delivered, as we will ensure that the case is delivered for the hundreds—indeed, thousands—of other people who will end up in the same position. As and when that is done, members will look around and be glad that the Government and the Parliament agreed to such an apprenticeship guarantee.

At some stage, Iain Gray will have to recognise that many of the measures that are being introduced at present across the economy are dependent on Scottish Government intervention and the Scottish Government's budget. How many of them will be at risk if £500 million is chopped out of the Scottish budget? What will Iain Gray say then to his constituents, not only those who are looking for apprenticeships but those who come to him about the health service, education system and vital social services? Will he say, as he did two weeks ago, "Just find the efficiency savings, chop the public spending and put people out of work"? What will the Labour Party's alibi be then?

I will say to my constituent that, when the First Minister was given the chance to lift him up, he chose instead to try to put others down.

I have already said to Iain Gray that we will deal with the individual constituency case, as I have the courtesy to deal with every individual constituency case that comes up. I have said to him that the guarantee extends not only to one constituent but to hundreds and thousands of apprentices throughout Scotland. That is the purpose of the guarantee. I have said to him that Skills Development Scotland, which was brought into being by this Government, is the body responsible for delivering skills and development in Scotland—hence the name. However, I have also said to Iain Gray, and he can regard it as a put-down if he wishes, that any political party that says, in the teeth of a recession, that it should chop public spending by £500 million in Scotland will have to live with the political consequences.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1548)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future, but I did speak to him last night on the telephone.

Despite what the Scottish National Party Government says, there is no such thing as a free prescription. Abolishing prescription charges will cost the health budget £40 million every year—£40 million every year that will be cut from somewhere else in the health budget. The First Minister needs to come clean and tell the people of Scotland which national health services will suffer as a result of this SNP cut.

I remind Annabel Goldie that our proposals to cut prescription charges, to help those who are suffering, and in particular those who are suffering from long-running illnesses, were in the budget that Annabel Goldie's co-operation allowed to pass through the Parliament.

Annabel and I agree on a number of things, but here I think we have a positive disagreement. I do not think that it is right and proper to tax the sick in society. I think that we should abide by the original obligations of a national health service free at the point of need. Only the Conservative member voted against the proposal in committee this week, so perhaps Annabel Goldie will be willing to accept, on this issue, that she is isolated in the chamber.

There has been only one vote on the reduction of prescription charges this year and it was yesterday. The First Minister should stop ducking the issue and dodging the question. I repeat: there is no such thing as a free prescription. While Two-salaries Salmond over there will be getting his prescriptions for free, patients all over Scotland will be losing out—losing out on 2,000 nurses, or nearly 200,000 magnetic resonance imaging scans, or huge quantities of life-saving cancer drugs, or a massive increase in the budget for hospital cleaning. As ever, the First Minister has chosen cheap headlines over responsible governance.

It is not evil, and it is not lack of compassion, to expect those such as the First Minister and every MSP in this Parliament, who can pay for prescriptions, to pay. How can Two-salaries Salmond justify his position, as—

Order. Miss Goldie, I have warned members before that I do not like the use of nicknames in the chamber. I ask all members to abide by that wish.

I defer to your position, Presiding Officer.

A double for the Conservative party—pulled up in two different chambers in two different Parliaments over the course of two days.

I say to Annabel Goldie that the increase that I welcomed most particularly of all in the public sector information on employment that was given yesterday was the substantial increase in health service numbers in Scotland. Under this Government, there are more doctors, more nurses and more consultants. The budget—which Annabel Goldie asked for, and which was voted for in this Parliament—combined investment in health service personnel with doing justice to those in society who were faced with a tax on illness. I think it right and proper that this chamber moves to abolish prescription charges in Scotland.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1549)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

A global research study by HSBC bank shows that the United Kingdom is investing less of its economic recovery package in tackling climate change and reducing carbon emissions than anywhere else in the world except Spain. The UK proportion is just 6.7 per cent; the United States Government is spending double that proportion.

Governments should be creating new green jobs and supporting economic recovery by tackling climate change. Will the First Minister publish the equivalent figures for his economic plans, so that we can know that his Government is not making the same mistakes as the UK Government?

I am perfectly happy to do that. However, we should draw attention to the fact that, even in these troubled times, almost £1 billion of private sector investment has been announced in renewable projects in Scotland over the past nine months or so. I am sure that, as a keen student of these matters, Tavish Scott will have read the report that was published very recently by the electricity networks strategy group—which includes the Governments and the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets—which looks forward to network solutions that will allow the massive power produced from renewable energy in Scotland not only to power this country, but to be exported south of the border. I hope that, eventually, we will become the green energy powerhouse of Europe.

Most people accept that marine renewables can create 7,000 jobs across Scotland and, of course, the industry conference is being held in Edinburgh this week. However, on Tuesday, Shell announced that it was stopping investment in wind, wave and hydro energy. Surely such a loss is significant. Did Shell consult the First Minister? Did he try to convince the company that this is the wrong time to be copping out of investment in green energy jobs? The cheque for the saltire prize will not be signed until 2015, but Shell is pulling out this year; meanwhile, this week, Labour started its latest dash for nuclear energy. What new investment in green jobs can the First Minister offer today?

I point out to the member that in its term of office this Government has approved 18 major renewable energy projects—one a month. The number of such projects approved under the previous Administration averaged four a year. Tavish Scott should welcome what the Government is doing.

Shell did not consult me on its decision, but I will give Tavish Scott some information that he might find of interest. The saltire prize has now attracted 90 declarations of interest from 21 countries, and we should welcome the fact that many publications around the globe are seeing Scotland as the centre of developments in tidal and wave power. Indeed, I rather liked the headline in Fortune magazine, "Scotland rules the waves".

Tavish Scott should understand that there is huge interest from a range of companies that are moving forward with renewable projects in Scotland. In fact, as far as marine, tidal and wave energy is concerned, there is even more interest to come. Some companies might well fall by the wayside, but we should welcome the fact that major companies are investing or proposing to invest in Scotland. We should, above all, welcome the delivery of one major renewable project a month, given the rather miserable record of the previous 10 years.

I will take a constituency question from Michael McMahon. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon—I meant Michael Matheson.

McMahon is actually Irish for Matheson.

Exactly.

As the First Minister will be aware, earlier this week, bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis, which is based in my constituency, announced that up to 150 employees will be made redundant. He will also know from his recent visit to the plant that the company is a world leader in hybrid buses, which it exports around the world.

Does the First Minister share my frustration that none of the major bus operators in Scotland—or, for that matter, in the rest of the United Kingdom—uses hybrid buses? Will the Government look at what action it can take to encourage bus operators in Scotland to move towards using such buses, as it will not only help our economy but benefit our environment?

Yes, we will. We will do everything in our power to help this outstanding company.

I am seriously concerned that the employment figures that were released yesterday—and that were generally better news than many people had expected—showed a decline over the year in manufacturing employment in Scotland. Alexander Dennis, for example, employs 1,000 people in Scotland and 2,000 people world wide and is innovative in bringing forward new projects. The fact is that we have some choices to make. Many people in this city—and, I hope, in the Parliament—might be thinking that if we had ascribed even a fraction of the money that has been devoted to the trams project in Edinburgh to buying hybrid buses from a Scottish manufacturer we would all be better off.

I will take a further constituency question from John Lamont.

This week has been another terrible week for job losses in the Scottish Borders. Hawick Knitwear is shedding jobs, construction firms are running on skeleton workforces and many other employers are asking their staff to take pay cuts or work reduced hours. No one knows where the axe will fall next. John Swinney has visited Hawick in my constituency on two occasions already to discuss the jobs crisis—lots of warm words, but very little concrete action so far.

Question, please.

What action will the Scottish Government take to ease the pain of Gordon Brown's recession in the Scottish Borders?

We are taking the action—the 51 measures—in the recovery plan. That is not just John Swinney visiting the Borders, as the constituency member said. For example, we are doubling the capability of the partnership action for continuing employment initiative—PACE—which intervenes in redundancy situations. We are straining every sinew, as I said earlier, to combat the recession and we are combating it rather better than elsewhere. I hope that the constituency member, in acknowledging the efforts of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and the Government in helping every area of Scotland, will not just join us in condemning Gordon Brown for the recession, but unite with us against the threatened cuts in Scottish public spending.

---

Somerville Judgment

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made with the United Kingdom Government in addressing issues arising from the Somerville judgment. (S3F-1567)

As I indicated earlier, the UK Government and the Scottish Government have made a joint statement on the Somerville issue. That statement says in detail that, following intensive discussions between officials, we have reached agreement in principle on a quick and practical solution to the anomaly exposed by the House of Lords judgment on Somerville.

We will work together to deliver, first, a one-year time bar in Scotland by the summer. Later, the UK Government will seek the support of the UK Parliament to bring forward a comprehensive solution extending the same protection to the devolved Administrations of Wales and Northern Ireland, so putting all the devolved Administrations on a consistent footing and consolidating the proposed changes to the Scotland Act 1998.

Our joint aim is to restore the situation to what it was before this anomaly became apparent and to protect the public interest in Scotland. I am pleased and grateful that, in the course of discussions over the past week, I was able to confirm that there is all-party support in this Parliament for bringing forward the required legislation before the summer recess.

I welcome the announcement that the Westminster Government is to rush to close this loophole only 18 months after it was first asked to do so.

The First Minister will be aware of cases in England where people who were compensated for wrongful imprisonment have had money withheld from their compensation payment to cover the cost of their board and lodging while in jail. Such deductions are completely wrong. Does the First Minister agree, however, that in cases where compensation has been or will be paid out as a result of the Somerville judgment to those rightly imprisoned, the responsible authority should pursue a similar course of action and deduct board and lodging expenses from that compensation payment so that those rightly imprisoned do not benefit financially from that imprisonment? Will the First Minister support such a course of action and ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to investigate the issue?

Stewart Maxwell has an important point and I share his concerns about public money going to criminals. The issues are complicated, of course, and I am sure that Stewart Maxwell will appreciate that I cannot give a commitment now to any particular course of action. However, I agree that the matter ought to be looked at. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and his officials are already considering the matter that Stewart Maxwell has raised and will take it further now that agreement has been reached on addressing the Somerville issue.

Reflecting on the Somerville judgment, I can see the advantage—perhaps the Parliament sees it too—of not just conducting discussions and reaching agreements between authorities, which is hugely important, but making public statements to the Parliament when it is necessary to do so and the time is right. The Parliament has a role in ensuring that the required political consensus can be reached to effect progress.

Does the First Minister agree that the direct intervention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to resolve the issues around the Somerville case was welcome and effective? [Interruption.]

Order.

Can the First Minister say whether money saved as a result raises the possibility of ending the current sanitation arrangements at Peterhead prison without the closure of the community prison in Aberdeen?

Given that we have reached an amicable settlement that is in the public interest in Scotland, I will not ascribe a word of criticism to anyone today.

What about tomorrow?

Tavish Scott must not judge my motives by his own.

It is a joint agreement, which I will do nothing other than welcome. I welcome the progress that has been made and the all-party support in the Parliament that has enabled us to bring forward with confidence the emergency legislation that will be required.

I say to Richard Baker that the cases that underlay Somerville dealt with conditions that existed in the Scottish Prison Service some years ago. If he checks the record, he will see exactly why some of the judgments went against the then Scottish Executive. Perhaps we can all come together to agree that the new prison estate in Scotland—the estate that this Government progressed and sanctioned in its early weeks of office—will be something of which all parties in the Parliament can rightfully be proud.

Robert Brown—very briefly.

On the principle that it is vital to get the legislation right to achieve the desired effect, will the First Minister undertake to publish the Scottish Government's draft legislation now? Will an urgent consultation be undertaken with stakeholders such as the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates to ensure that the law of unintended consequences does not arise as a result of the haste with which the legislation is introduced?

We published the proposed legislation last week. It might be amended slightly following the discussions over the past week. That is exactly why we published it.

Robert Brown mentions the haste with which the legislation is being introduced, but there has been no haste at all in the consideration of this matter. A lot of consideration has gone into the legislation, which I will gladly publish.

---

Energy Options Study

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will publish the report of the study that it has commissioned on future energy options. (S3F-1573)

The Scottish Government published volume 5 of the Scottish energy study in October 2008. That independent study examined the prospects for future energy supply and demand in Scotland, and the implications of those trends for energy-related CO2 emissions up to 2020. In particular, it presented projections of how the electricity generation portfolio in Scotland could evolve to achieve the renewable energy targets for 2011 and 2020.

I am sure that the whole Parliament will be delighted to know that we can say with considerable confidence, as we can on police numbers, that the 2011 target will not just be reached but exceeded.

I am sorry that the First Minister appears to have forgotten the undertaking that he gave after the publication of the Scottish energy study, at the behest of his Council of Economic Advisers, to commission a study of energy options. I look forward to receiving an answer from the First Minister on that subject in due course.

He has already mentioned the report on the electricity transmission network across Great Britain that was published this month. Given that that report confirms that urgent action is needed to provide grid access for future renewable generation and that that action goes beyond what the Scottish ministers have included in the national planning framework, will he, when he publishes the energy options study, which I hope that he will do in due course, set out a timetable for the decisions that the Scottish ministers will need to take to realise that vision, starting with a decision on the Beauly to Denny transmission line?

The Beauly to Denny public local inquiry has been held under the provisions that were operated by the previous Government and has taken some considerable time. As Lewis Macdonald will know from local experience, under the new legislation public local inquiries can go through rather more quickly and ministers can take related decisions expeditiously.

I am glad that he mentioned the grid study, which I have with me. The proposals for the offshore gridlines will not just help the Scottish renewable energy targets—which, as he will understand, we are confident of meeting—to be met; they will contribute to the meeting of the UK's renewable energy targets. The study suggests that, between them, the two major offshore lines might accommodate 3.6GW of renewable electricity, which could be exported from Scotland down the east and west coasts to England. I mention that because I think that it is a good idea to generate electricity and to export it. However, it makes the position of people in his party, such as Iain Gray, who sometimes suggest that there will be an energy gap in Scotland, appear rather curious. I put it to them that if 4GW of renewable electricity—which amounts to two thirds of Scotland's entire electricity consumption—will be exported offshore, it hardly sounds as if we will be short of electricity.

---

Confiscation of Assets

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government intends to take to make the law more effective in respect of the confiscation of assets of criminals. (S3F-1566)

Asset recovery is a vital tool in the fight against organised crime in Scotland. We will be consulting shortly on adding to the list of specific offences that are deemed to be criminal lifestyle offences in Scotland; for example, illegal money lending. We also intend to reduce the criminal benefit amount—the minimum amount that can be targeted—from its current £5,000 level to £1,000.

We have recently allocated an additional £400,000 for this year and the next two years to the Crown Office to help bolster its efforts in recovering criminal assets.

Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland and Her Majesty's inspectorate of prosecution are currently reviewing performance in asset recovery, and we will act on their recommendations as soon as they become available.

Despite the best efforts of all concerned, the present policy is largely ineffective at combating the actions of a small group of ruthless individuals who create havoc in some of Scotland's communities. [Laughter.]

Order.

In Ireland, the situation is quite simple. Where an individual has a lifestyle inconsistent with his work record—where he has a £2 million house, two Mercs in the driveway and a villa in Marbella, and he has not worked for years—he has to prove where he got the money from or his property is forfeited to the state. The balance of proof is entirely on that individual. Will the First Minister undertake to consider the Irish experience and whether it is worth importing into Scots law?

Bill Aitken should understand that when he referred to a small, dedicated group trying to undermine Scottish society, some of the baser elements in the chamber were looking at the Conservatives.

Yes, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and I will consider the Irish experience and whether to add it to our weaponry in the matter.

The proceeds of crime legislation has secured more than £23.5 million in Scotland. We can and will improve it through the measures that I have suggested, and we will consider any proposals to improve it further. However, let us remember that in the past financial year, the costs for the civil recovery unit were £1 million, and the unit managed to remit £2.7 million to the Scottish consolidated funds, helping a range of organisations and communities, including YouthLink Scotland, the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Rugby Union, basketballscotland and the sports facilities fund

While we hope to bolster the unit's efforts through increased funding and legislation, let us not, in any sense, give the impression that the proceeds of crime legislation has not been a success. It is doing a great deal of good in Scottish society.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I regret raising this point of order, and I do so with the greatest respect, but I believe that the exchanges that took place following Mr Maxwell's question to the First Minister constituted an abuse of the criteria for the conduct of question time, which are set out in standing orders. Might I suggest that it would be more suitable to have such an important topic discussed after a statement, instead of using First Minister's question time in this way?

I am afraid that I am not entirely aware of what Ms MacDonald is referring to. I will consider her point of order, but at this time I am afraid that I am unable to give an answer.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—