Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Official Report 806KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive Question Time

---

General Questions

---

College Principals (Meetings)

1. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met college principals. (S3O-13399)

Ministers and officials regularly meet individual principals and representatives of the principals convention. I last met college principals on 16 March, when I had the great pleasure of attending the launch of a concordat between the Scottish Agricultural College, Oatridge College, Barony College and Elmwood College.

The minister, like all members, knows that the Scottish budget for the forthcoming year is being reduced by 2 per cent as a result of a reduction in revenue funding from the Westminster Government. However, the Scottish Government’s reduction in revenue funding to the college estate in Scotland is 10.4 per cent in one year. Will the minister explain why it was decided to reduce college funding by such a disproportionate amount in relation to the overall reduction in the Scottish budget? The minister will be aware that Borders College, among other colleges, is in the dreadful situation of considering compulsory redundancies. When she made her request to colleges with regard to redundancies, did she explain the difference between the overall reduction in the Scottish budget and the reduction in the budget for colleges by the Scottish Government?

I am glad that Mr Purvis recognises the implications of the reduction of £1.3 billion in the Scottish Government’s budget by his Westminster Government. However, he fails to acknowledge that, south of the border, colleges are facing a 25 per cent reduction in their teaching grant over four years. Given the commitment by the Scottish Government and the Scottish National Party to try to remove the fear of compulsory redundancies, I would have thought that Mr Purvis would take the opportunity to encourage everyone in the Parliament to unite behind our attempts to secure that prize.

College principals tell me that budgets for the coming year have been cut significantly and that, to maintain student numbers, they are having drastically to reduce the number of teaching hours that each student receives. Is that acceptable to the minister?

I understand Cathie Craigie’s point. She should be aware that colleges the length and breadth of Scotland have given a commitment to maintain student numbers. Of course, given the difficult economic times, there is increased demand on our colleges. Ultimately, they are at the front line of the economic recovery. I would have thought that Ms Craigie would welcome the fact that, despite the backdrop of the £1.3 billion that has been lost to the Government, we have record levels of student support and a guarantee to protect student numbers.

---

Public Sector Employment (Compulsory Redundancy)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it is committed to a policy of no compulsory redundancies across the public sector. (S3O-13458)

Yes, the Government is committed to a policy of no compulsory redundancies. There is real benefit in providing security of employment in uncertain times to the dedicated and professional staff who work in all parts of the public sector. I was delighted to announce last week that the Scottish Government has extended its no compulsory redundancy agreement for its staff for a further year, to March 2012. I have always been clear that the Government wants to extend that type of agreement across the public sector in Scotland. We are continuing to work closely with our partners to achieve that goal.

That is indeed welcome news for many people. There are 34 Glasgow City Council workers who are being transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations against their will as a result of the awarding of the United Kingdom Border Agency asylum support contract to Ypeople. Like lambs to the slaughter, if those workers accept the transfer, they face an insecure future, and many face imminent redundancy. However, if they do not accept, Glasgow City Council says that they will have made themselves redundant, despite that Labour council’s no compulsory redundancy policy. Does the cabinet secretary agree that those workers, who have been praised throughout the UK for the standard of their work, and who have been producing financial surpluses for their employers in today’s tough economic climate, are the very people whom the public sector should not only protect, but actively retain? Does he agree that a local authority the size of Glasgow City Council cannot possibly argue that it cannot redeploy a mere 34 workers?

It is important in all of those circumstances that the employees concerned are treated with care and dignity, and in an atmosphere of fairness. I encourage Glasgow City Council to engage with the workforce concerned to try to find ways of avoiding compulsory redundancies at all costs. With flexible working and a committed management within the organisation, a better way than the one that has been set out by Anne McLaughlin can undoubtedly be found.

I heard and welcome the cabinet secretary’s answer that he would try to extend the policy of no compulsory redundancies throughout the public sector.

Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that whatever the outcome of the tendering process and eventual decision on the Gourock to Dunoon ferry route, it will not result in a single compulsory redundancy? If he gave us that assurance, it would be good news for the 66 employees who face an uncertain time between now and the final decision in June.

Mr McNeil has made his point fairly on the record. He will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any of the details that he has raised, given that there is a live tender process in relation to the contract. He has clearly set out his position and I understand the concern of the workforce that he represents.

---

Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing (Criteria for Meetings on Individual Cases)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what criteria the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing uses when deciding whether or not to have meetings regarding issues arising from individual cases. (S3O-13471)

I value the opportunity to meet individuals when that is possible and appropriate. I believe that listening and responding to feedback is a vital part of the process of improving health services.

I cannot intervene directly or offer comments on clinical decisions affecting an individual’s care and treatment. However, I am always prepared to consider how the system can be improved to ensure patient safety and improve the quality of care.

Will the cabinet secretary look into the circumstances of a case involving my constituent Graeme McLaren, who went in with back problems and now has to be in a wheelchair most of the time? I have tried to assist Mr McLaren for several years, but in my view NHS Lothian has done nowhere near as much as it should to assist him. Will she agree to meet Mr McLaren and look into the details of his case?

I say to Gavin Brown, as I did in my initial answer, that I cannot intervene in or comment on the clinical circumstances of someone’s care. I am sure that he appreciates that that would be entirely inappropriate.

I am sure, too, that he is aware of the national health service complaints procedure and the right of any individual to refer a case to the ombudsman if they are not satisfied with the outcome of a complaint. It may be that Gavin Brown’s constituent has already gone through those processes.

Of course, if Gavin Brown wants to forward the details of this particular case to my office, I will ensure that it is looked into and that any appropriate action is taken. I hope that he will take me up on that offer.

---

University Tuition Fees

4. To ask the Scottish Executive how it plans to fund its commitment not to introduce university tuition fees. (S3O-13473)

There is no silver bullet to the question of how we place funding for universities in Scotland on a long-term sustainable basis. What is clear, though, is that if the Government is re-elected there will be no return to tuition fees, either up front or back door.

The joint work that we have undertaken with Universities Scotland has given us a clear estimate of any funding gap and allowed us to explore a number of funding streams, including up to £62 million from students from the rest of the United Kingdom and an estimated £22 million from students from the rest of the European Union. That is before we factor in any other sources, such as philanthropic giving, increased commercial activity or efficiency savings that the universities themselves have agreed are deliverable.

The First Minister has made a clear and unequivocal commitment that any funding gap will be closed. We will ensure that our spending plans are balanced to deliver on that commitment.

There is debate about the size of the gap in funding of our higher education. There is also debate about the impact that adding fees for students from beyond Scotland would have on universities’ ability to attract them. However, we can all make a reasonable guess that as the market takes hold, the gap, whatever it is today, will likely only grow.

One political party in Parliament wants to raise a tax on graduates. Another wants to raise a tax on all wealthy people. Is not the least credible position the one in the middle, the one that is held by the Government and the main Opposition party, which say that they can close the gap but will not say where the money will come from? How are parents of current and future students in Scotland supposed to view that remotely credibly?

I would have thought that the member would welcome the renewed commitment that this Government has given to the strong Scottish tradition of free access to higher education—access on the basis of the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. The fact that he refuses to do so reveals his posturing on this issue. He is therefore quite unfit to pronounce on anything educational—or, indeed, anything else.

---

Addiction

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the view of the Canadian expert on addiction, Professor Bruce K Alexander, and of many Scottish drugs workers, that addiction should be viewed as a response to psychosocial dislocation largely caused by the disruptive effects of the economic system and that it is unhelpful to demonise either individual substances or people. (S3O-13469)

There is much in what Professor Alexander says.

Is the Government willing to amend the drugs strategy, acknowledging that addiction and recovery from addiction are socially determined phenomena, which require, in addition to treatment and support of the individual, a commitment to an economic strategy that enhances psychosocial integration? Therefore, will the Government commit to phasing out gross domestic product as the main measure of economic progress—a measure that takes no account of inequality and other dislocating factors?

The drugs strategy “The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland’s Drug Problem” already takes account of the economic links between drug addiction and poverty. As for the member’s suggestion that we abolish GDP, I have to say that that decision is slightly above my pay grade—at least at the current time.

However, just yesterday on my last ministerial engagement—at least for the time being—I had the pleasure of visiting Cothrom Eile, which is funded by the Mungo Foundation and provides just the kind of facility that we need.

I pay tribute to Bill Wilson for the passionate, articulate and informed way in which he has championed the cause of tackling poverty in this Parliament.

I call Margo MacDonald.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Try and follow that!

I ask of the cabinet secretary and whoever is the cabinet secretary in the next session that they look again at how drugs are classified and that they carry out a study into who uses them, when, where, why and why they stop. We have never looked at that properly. I hope that the next cabinet secretary will undertake such a study.

I acknowledge Margo MacDonald’s lifetime interest in these matters and pay tribute to the work that she has done. This Parliament does not have power over the classification of illegal drugs—would that it did—but we certainly work constructively with the Westminster Government on all these matters. I thank all parties in the Parliament and all members for the approach that they have taken to “The Road to Recovery”, which has seen us all work together to try to deal with the scourge of drug addiction in Scotland.

---

Proposed Container Terminal (Rosyth)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with Port Babcock Rosyth Ltd regarding the proposed development of a container terminal at Rosyth and its environmental impact on the surrounding area. (S3O-13405)

Officials have had various discussions with the company to explain the procedures for submitting harbour orders. They have also issued a formal screening opinion outlining environmental issues to be considered by the company in preparing the supporting environmental statement for the proposed development.

While remembering that this is a major project for both my constituency and Scotland, I hope that the minister will agree that the environmental effects on my constituents in the Limekilns and Charlestown areas should be minimised as part of any approval that the Government might give to the Rosyth container terminal. What assurances can the minister give my constituents in that regard?

The member is right to point out the possible major environmental concerns for his constituents and others. The proposed development is located in an area of international ecological importance. For that reason, it is essential that all the environmental sensitivities surrounding it are considered in the process. During the dialogue that we have with the applicants, any issues that require further clarification or additional information will be raised and addressed. The Scottish ministers will also undertake an appropriate assessment under the habitats regulations prior to taking a decision on the development.

---

Antisocial Behaviour

7. To ask the Scottish Executive what its priorities are for tackling antisocial behaviour in communities. (S3O-13417)

The Scottish Government is committed to making our communities safer and stronger. With record numbers of police on our streets and a renewed focus on prevention and education, that commitment has resulted in the lowest levels of recorded crime since 1978.

Our priorities for tackling antisocial behaviour are set out in “Promoting Positive Outcomes”, which was published in spring 2009. That approach continues to have the full support of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, academia, the third sector and other partners. The first annual progress report to Parliament on implementing the antisocial behaviour framework was published on 30 November 2010 and endorsed by the Parliament on 16 December.

Does the minister agree that Labour’s antisocial behaviour legislation has made a difference to people’s everyday lives across Scotland? Does he also agree that Labour’s new five-point plan on the issue is an important step forward in combating the scourge of antisocial behaviour? Will he join me in congratulating the community and agencies of Possilpark on their positive response to the dispersal order in the area, which has reduced disorder by 80 per cent in the period in which it has operated?

We have always acknowledged that legislative measures are one tool in the box that local authorities may use as appropriate. I hope that all members also acknowledge that, during the parliamentary session, with the funding and supply of more than 1,000 additional police officers on our streets, crime has fallen to its lowest level for 32 years. We are never complacent, but that is a proud record that we will be pleased to commend to the electorate in due course.

---

Leith Biomass Plant (Consultation)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive how many submissions concerning the proposed Leith biomass plant it had received by the 11 March consultation deadline and how many were objections. (S3O-13414)

The energy consents and deployment unit received 1,900 consultation responses from organisations that were consulted on the proposed development and from members of the public who submitted representations. Of those responses, 1,156 were objections, which include holding objections that were made pending the submission of further information; two supported the development; and 732 were received only recently and have yet to be logged. In addition to public representations, responses have been sought from a number of formal consultees.

I accept that the minister cannot give a view on the proposal, but I am sure that, if the future energy minister is sitting in the chamber, he or she will recognise the massive local opposition to the proposal. However, the current minister could give a view on a policy on large-scale biomass plants. Will he support, as a policy, a moratorium on developing such plants, on the ground that they will contribute nothing towards meeting our vital 2050 climate change objectives?

I note Malcolm Chisholm’s comments. We are working closely with the United Kingdom Government to help it to develop its biomass strategy. As he properly said, I cannot comment on live planning applications. It is obvious that I cannot comment on any call for a moratorium on applications for large-scale biomass plants when ministers are involved in determining the process for such schemes.

I put on record my tribute and best wishes to Jim Mather as he answers his last question as a minister. [Applause.]

Given the strength of local opinion on this issue, I will find consensus with Malcolm Chisholm at this point, before we fight the same seat in the election campaign.

Just come to a question, please.

Given the strength of local opinion, will the minister pass on advice to his successor about the need for a public inquiry on the proposal, so that the public in Leith have a further chance to respond?

I note that suggestion. We should note that the process has been properly followed, open and consultative. I hope that such features will be the hallmark of future processes.

Before First Minister’s question time, I know that members will wish to join me in welcoming three visitors to the gallery: the chairman of the Council of Federation of the Russian Federation, Mr Sergy Mironov; the ambassador of the Russian Federation to the UK, His Excellency Alexander Yakovenko; and the Austrian ambassador to the UK, His Excellency Dr Emil Brix. [Applause.]