Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, June 23, 2011

Official Report 1101KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00065)

I have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Two weeks ago, I met the First Minister and told him that we want to support legislation against sectarianism, but I expressed serious concerns about the timetable. He told me that the football clubs were demanding that he legislate before the start of the season. Yesterday, both Rangers and Celtic said that the bill was too rushed. The Law Society, the churches and Christine Grahame, the convener of the Justice Committee, all agreed. The Lord Advocate said that the bill does not necessarily have to be in place before the football season. Does the First Minister now regret not acting for four years and having to squeeze the legislation into two weeks?

I listened this morning to the comments that were made across the chamber. I always listen to our partners in the enterprise to try to eliminate sectarianism and sectarian displays from Scottish football. I accept—I think that everybody accepts—that we have a majority in this chamber but we need consensus. On this issue above all, I want consensus; I want consensus across the chamber and across our partner organisations.

I ask Parliament at half past 12 to agree—unanimously or near unanimously, I hope—to the bill at stage 1 to allow consideration to continue. I will then propose that business managers, in consultation with the convener of the Justice Committee, discuss a new timetable that will allow for further consideration and evidence to be taken on the bill in advance of formal consideration of stage 2 amendments at the Justice Committee. Stage 3 proceedings would then follow in the usual manner for a public bill, with the intention behind such a timetable for discussion being that the bill would be passed by the end of this year. If Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill at 12.30, I will ask Bruce Crawford to initiate discussions with business managers.

What we say in this place on this issue has huge ramifications across society, so I hope that we can allow for the probability—the certainty, even—that each and every single one of us wants to eliminate sectarianism and sectarian displays from Scottish football, and that each and every one of us wants to eliminate sectarianism from Scottish society.

What we do as a Parliament and how we avoid the opportunity to attack each other on who said what when, or who did what when, is an important part of that joint message. I hope that the Parliament will accept that there is a huge and genuine urgency in the matter, and that it will also accept that this Government wishes to achieve consensus in Parliament and throughout Scottish society.

I welcome the fact that the First Minister has listened to the concerns about the timetable. It is certainly the intention on this side of the chamber to support the principles of the bill. I made it clear that we want to support the Government in legislating against bigotry in football and, indeed, anywhere else.

To achieve consensus, however, we have to try to get the approach right. This week’s examination of the bill has not helped with that. At her appearance at the Justice Committee, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs struggled to clarify what actions would be caught by the bill. Indeed, the Lord Advocate had to return to the committee yesterday to provide further clarification. In the spirit of achieving consensus, I ask the First Minister to clarify now how actions such as singing the national anthem or blessing oneself could be considered a crime under the bill.

I advise Iain Gray to look at the words of the minister and those of the Lord Advocate, who was actually making his first appearance before the committee. As the Lord Advocate explained, these things depend on

“the facts, the circumstances and the context”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 June 2011; c 101.]

as has always been the case with many offences in Scots law.

I am going to avoid the obvious temptation of saying that, in dealing with this subject, we have to be prepared to recognise that each of us has a bona fide interest in driving sectarianism out of the game of football and out of Scottish society. The bill that has been introduced is, I think, clear in its intent and purpose and can be clearly implemented. The objections that have been raised against it are not—by a vast majority—about intent or even content, but about whether enough time is being allowed to give wider society, and the groups and interest groups that we carry with us, their say on the bill. That was one of the points that was made by the Labour spokesperson in this morning’s debate. What I am offering in good faith to the chamber is exactly the opportunity to do that.

Given that offer, given what people have said in the debate and given what is—believe me—the reservoir of good will from people across Scottish society to a Parliament that is prepared to take action on this matter, cannot we now go forward on that basis?

If the First Minister had listened, he would have heard me say that, yes, we can go forward on that basis. However, that does not mean that we can sidestep difficult questions about legislating on such a difficult and sensitive area, or questions about the way in which the legislation, which we want to be put in place, will be implemented.

Concerns have been raised this week not only about the timescale, but about resourcing implementation of the legislation. Les Gray of the Scottish Police Federation said that he supports the bill, but it will not work without resources and the financial memorandum is not enough. Given that we all must prove that we are serious about legislating properly and ensuring that legislation works, will the First Minister make any commitment with regard to the additional resources that will be required to implement the legislation and make it work?

The resources will be in place to ensure that the legislation is implemented effectively. I know that Iain Gray will be the first to acknowledge that the evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and from the responsible police officers who are in the front line, which demonstrated their strong welcome for the legislation and their confidence in their ability to implement it, is a factor that I am sure carries sway with people across the chamber in their wish to support it.

One of the statements about the bill that the minister made this week—and which I welcomed—was that this would not be the beginning and end of legislation or other action to address sectarianism and bigotry. As the First Minister well knows, we have for some years now argued that we must at community level, and through educational measures in particular, work to root out this aspect of our society. What other measures does the First Minister envisage will follow consideration of the bill, that will go beyond football into wider society and, indeed, beyond legislation?

I am glad that Iain Gray has given me the opportunity to state that the legislative arm of the actions of the joint action group was only one of six workstreams and that the other five workstreams will report to the Government in the next few weeks. Obviously, we will want to share that work. One useful aspect of that timetable—and, indeed, of the new timetable for legislation—is that it will enable people to see that legislative action is only one of the initiatives that are being taken in football. Moreover, initiatives in the game of football form only one part of the initiatives that will be taken across society. Again, I say that I listened to the debate this morning.

The support for community-based organisations working against sectarianism has in the past few years been greater than ever before. In financial terms, over the past four years a budget of £224,000 has become a budget of £525,000. I think that John Park said in the earlier debate that he had come across the organisation show bigotry the red card. Both Iain Gray and I attended the launch of that organisation. However, what is perhaps more important is that in the coming year the funding for its valuable work is £120,000. That organisation is coming to the attention of members and the wider society in football because it is one of the many groups that are being funded by the Government at the present moment. The community initiatives, the educational initiatives and particular organisational initiatives will continue to be supported in a co-ordinated fashion.

However, I am grateful to Iain Gray for giving me the opportunity to point out that the legislative arm is only one of the initiatives on how we will drive this evil out of the game of football. I listened to every aspect of the debate and I have spoken to many of our stakeholders, whose urgency and support in this matter are absolute in terms of their determination. I hope and believe—and I take people at their word on this—that by making available the timetable for fuller consideration, we will be able to carry the Parliament unanimously, and together exorcise and drive out this blight from our game of football and from our country.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00058)

I will meet him on Saturday, alongside the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and others when the Duke of Rothesay takes the salute at the armed forces and veterans parade that forms part of the celebrations for armed forces day.

We all agree that we must deal with sectarianism, which is vile, odious and utterly unacceptable. The imperative of the majority Scottish Government is to get the bill right, so I welcome the common sense that has broken out and the Scottish Government’s recognition of the need for a longer timetable. I am not given often to praising the First Minister, but he has shown maturity in accepting that his Government had not got the bill right. I say to him well done for accepting that and for putting the bill on to a much more realistic footing.

It seems that, under the bill as drafted, there are circumstances in which making the sign of the cross or singing the national anthem could constitute a crime. Within the bill, criteria range widely: from hatred, to behaviour that is threatening or offensive, to behaviour that is likely to incite public disorder. Can the First Minister confirm that, with the new timetable, the Scottish Government will look at whether the criteria in the bill are consistent with previous legislation? Now that a more extensive consultation process is possible, will the Scottish Government consider whether the criteria as currently listed are adequate?

I believe that the criteria are adequate. I think that anyone who listened to and saw the Lord Advocate explain exactly those points before the Justice Committee yesterday would be fully satisfied that the nature of the bill is well within the tradition of Scots law, because it depends on facts, circumstances and context. Some of the stories that have been running this week have no basis in reality in that sense. The Lord Advocate gave excellent examples to explain that, so that even non-lawyers like me would understand. I thought that his evidence put the canard to rest. We should bear that in mind.

The bill—as Annabel Goldie knows, the legislation has two parts: offensive behaviour causing public disorder at and around football matches, and threats that incite serious harm or religious hatred—is certainly the type of legislation that is required. With the extra time that will be available for discussion and debate, I am sure, and I welcome Annabel Goldie’s indication of this, that the Conservative Party will be able to support the legislation.

I will broaden this out a bit. Even if over the longer timetable—which is very welcome—we address some of the ambiguities and uncertainties in and maybe even limitations of the bill, the sad and ugly truth is that in certain parts of the west of Scotland we have embedded and entrenched sectarian attitudes. The bill is only part of solving the problem. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy to deal with that repugnant culture that, sadly, runs more broadly than just in football stadia or certain pubs?

We must not underrate the importance of not tolerating sectarian displays in our national game. There is a consequence of that having happened for generations in Scottish society. Sometimes societies decide that, on the balance of opinion, enough is enough and something requires to be done, and something that was acceptable or seen to be tolerated a generation ago no longer has a place in a civilised society. The two things are interlinked because of the importance of our beautiful game of football and the power that it has for good, which must be mobilised—a point that was made by our church leaders during the debates that we had earlier this year. The work on driving sectarianism out of football is only part of a wider approach involving community and educational initiatives. I would be glad to go through the organisations and the import of what is being supported. We must not underrate the extent to which the two are connected.

If Annabel Goldie will allow me to do so, I will make an observation. It is rather unfortunate if I contributed to the sacking last week of Paul McBride QC as an adviser to the Conservative Party; I did not mean to do so. I have been following closely what Mr McBride has had to say about the bill. He is an advocate with huge experience in Scots law and his support for the bill has been fully in the traditions of Scots law. His has been one of the powerful voices arguing for action to be taken as quickly as possible.

In the light of new information regarding the cost of the Edinburgh trams project, does the First Minister agree that the time has come to instigate a full public inquiry?

I am supportive of a public inquiry into the trams project. We should let the City of Edinburgh Council continue its deliberations, but a public inquiry would be an excellent thing to do. I say as gently as possible to the member that, if it comes to a public inquiry, some people and some political parties will have more to worry about than others.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00062)

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

When politicians change their minds, we must welcome their reflection and consideration rather than complain and criticise. I offer my thanks to the First Minister for listening on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill.

I welcome that acknowledgement from the Liberal Democrats. It gives me great hope that, as we go through the process as a Parliament, we can set an example to wider society, as Scotland would expect.

One of the issues that we had with the bill was that we believed that, in the main, the powers already exist to tackle the fundamental problems. We believe in voluntary action, community measures and using existing law before exploring further avenues for legislation. First, I ask the First Minister to request that the Lord Advocate publish an assessment of the use of existing law. Secondly, I ask him to prepare and agree a renewed comprehensive anti-sectarianism strategy to root out this cancer from Scottish society.

I am desperately trying not to break the consensus that I am trying to establish. I am sure that Willie Rennie did not mean to do that; however, he should look at the Lord Advocate’s evidence to the Justice Committee yesterday. He laid out, in precise terms, the difficulties that breach of the peace as a general offence has been running into. He gave, as an example, something that would seem to most people to be a clear racial matter but which was ruled not to be a breach of the peace because of the interpretation of that general offence by the court. The argument that the existing framework of law is adequate is not borne out by the facts.

The other aspect is that both the proposed offences are indictable offences that carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and limited fines. That is an indication of how seriously we take such manifestations of sectarianism. If something becomes an indictable offence, it is because this Parliament and this society decide that no more will it be tolerated in our country.

I agree with Willie Rennie that a strategy across society must be part and parcel of the approach that is taken. However, we must not underrate the importance of legislation as an indication by the Parliament—by law makers—that some things will no longer be tolerated in Scotland.

---

2012 Olympic Games Legacy

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the reported concerns of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce that any legacy for Scotland from the 2012 Olympic games will be “absolutely minimal”. (S4F-00060)

We share some of those concerns and will continue to work with partners to ensure that Scotland gets as much benefit as possible from London 2012. However, the United Kingdom Government has made it clear that the whole UK should benefit from the Olympics, which is a promise that should be redeemed.

Is not it the case that against a range of measures—the number of events to be hosted, the number of tickets for Scottish schoolchildren to attend events, the number of tourists coming to Scotland, support for grass-roots Scottish sport, and contracts awarded to Scottish companies—there is no discernible benefit to Scotland from the 2012 Olympic games? In addition, the Olympic committee continues its attacks on the integrity of the Scottish national football team.

Does the First Minister agree that when about £1.7 billion is being spent on regenerating the east end of London to stage the Olympic games, Scotland should receive the Barnett consequentials of that figure, which could go towards Scotland having a legacy from the 2014 Commonwealth games of which we can all be proud?

Jamie Hepburn draws attention to a very important aspect. It is a view, incidentally, that is shared absolutely by the Administrations of Wales and Northern Ireland. We have put in a joint submission arguing exactly that point.

The point is this: there has been substantial expenditure on sporting facilities in London, and it is perfectly acceptable that that should happen when major international games come, but a great deal of the expenditure has been specifically on transport and regeneration in London and not on the games themselves. If that argument is accepted, that expenditure should have been Barnettable, according to the Treasury funding formula.

Until recently, there was a question about whether that expenditure was truly necessary for the games. However, Sebastian Coe, the chief executive of the organising committee, said very recently about the Olympics:

“This is not a £9.3 billion sporting project. Seventy-five pence in every pound that will be spent is going into the regeneration of London.”

Let me be quite clear: although Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland believe that regeneration spending in London is a good thing, it is also right and proper that that expenditure, under the current funding rules, should have been Barnetted and an appropriate share given to the other three nations in these islands.

The First Minister might recall that the Parliament’s cross-party group on sport warned about the loss to Scottish community sport that would occur because of the Olympic games, so I heartily back his efforts to claw back some of that money.

However, I ask him to take account of the legacy for Scottish sport if the Olympic committee has its way as regards the football team. Will he add his support to the Scottish Football Association in advising young footballers that it would not be a clever move for them to play in a British team?

I give my total support to the Scottish Football Association in that matter. The SFA has to look after the interests of the game of football in Scotland and our presence in national and international arenas in the long term. It has to look beyond one particular tournament, and at the best interests of the Scottish game. I believe that it is doing that and that not just the Government but the Parliament should give the SFA their total support in the view that it has expressed on moves by the Olympic committee.

---

Investor Confidence

5. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take to provide confidence to investors in light of the report by the Ernst and Young Scottish ITEM club that the prospect of continuing constitutional change could put Scotland at an economic disadvantage. (S4F-00073)

I am sure that Elaine Murray would be the first to welcome the Ernst and Young direct investment report 2011, which has just identified Scotland as the prime location, measured by employment creation, for direct inward investment. I hope that Elaine Murray acknowledges that the Government and its policies might have had some small part in that wonderful success.

Indeed, the Ernst and Young report is extremely interesting. It points out, for example, that the public sector in Scotland began to cut jobs well before overall public spending constraints were introduced. It is a very interesting report indeed. However, if we can get back to the economic recovery—

If you would, and go for a question, Ms Murray.

I will go for a question. The ITEM club report identified business investment as the key driver for growth. For the sake of the Scottish economy and investment and employment in Scotland, will the First Minister act to reduce uncertainty and increase confidence, through the early introduction of a referendum bill? A promise delivered on early is not a promise broken. [Interruption.]

Can we hear the member, please?

Will the First Minister include the referendum bill in his statement to the Parliament on the legislative programme, in September?

Maybe I can help Elaine Murray, because I have the exact quotation from the Ernst and Young report, which I read and which—I am afraid—is not as Elaine Murray has represented it. I will read from the report, so that there is no doubt about it. It says:

“Supporters of the status quo”—

such as Elaine Murray—

“will point to the damage that uncertainty over governance, taxation and the affordability of self-funding measures might do to mobile investment.”

However, in the next sentence it goes on to say that

“Those in favour of change will offer the hope that better stewardship of Scottish affairs, if it can be delivered, will act as a stimulus to confidence and growth.”

Elaine Murray is a supporter of the status quo. She has that in common with English Conservative members of Parliament, who were making exactly the same point at Scottish questions yesterday. Many of us are in favour of the second argument: that better stewardship of Scottish affairs will act as a stimulus to confidence and growth.

What is the Scottish Government’s view of the ITEM club report’s outlook for employees in the manufacturing sector?

The ITEM club report contains a number of key indicators. It projects a contraction in public sector employment, but one thing that it points to is that, during the past year, private sector employment has substantially outgrown the fall in public sector employment. There is no complacency on the part of the Government about that; as recently as last week the Government made clear to Treasury ministers its views about the wisdom or otherwise of their policies. However, there is no question but that the 40,000 additional jobs in the private sector in Scotland during the past year—the 10 per cent rise in construction and the 6 per cent rise in financial and business services—give us substantial hope that the vibrancy of the Scottish economy will enable it to withstand, at least in part, the harsh budget cutbacks of the Government at Westminster, which Gavin Brown supports.

---

M74 Northern Extension

6. To ask the First Minister what economic benefits will be delivered to Glasgow and the west of Scotland by the opening of the M74 northern extension. (S4F-00061)

The M74 extension will open next week on 28 June, eight months ahead of schedule and on course to be almost £20 million under budget. At its peak, construction of the road sustained 900 construction jobs between 2008 and earlier this year. The road will provide improved access to economic, employment and education opportunities for the people of Glasgow and other parts of Scotland. The M74 completion was a major factor in attracting two major developers to invest in the Clyde Gateway east site, which will bring another 700 jobs to Glasgow.

I thank the First Minister for ensuring that that vital strategic road was built ahead of schedule and under budget. The M74 complete to compete group, which is led by Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and includes Scottish Enterprise, Renfrewshire Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of British Industry, predicted that at least £1.5 billion, primarily in manufacturing, would be invested over the two decades following opening of the road. Can the First Minister say how many jobs he anticipates will be created as a result of the M74’s completion, to the benefit of families and communities in, for example, North Ayrshire, Renfrewshire and Inverclyde?

There will be significant journey-time improvement and congestion on the M8 will be reduced by the taking of approximately 20,000 vehicles off the route between Charing Cross and Baillieston.

As I said, the M74 is a major factor in attracting direct jobs to Glasgow. I should point out that a study that Scottish Enterprise commissioned said that completion of the M74 could create development opportunities that would be capable of supporting more than 20,000 jobs over a 20-year period. Is it not a good thing that one of the first acts of this Administration on taking office four years ago was to move to do what had not been done for an entire generation, and complete that vital road link for Glasgow and the west of Scotland?