Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2011

Official Report 1075KB pdf

---

First Minister’s Question Time

---

Engagements

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2913)

I support the Presiding Officer’s comments about the earthquake in New Zealand, and I note that a Grampian Fire and Rescue Service team is in New Zealand at present. The Government has also offered the New Zealand health service any support that we can give the people of New Zealand at this extraordinarily difficult time.

My engagements include measures to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Following yesterday’s alarming incident in Auchinleck, does the First Minister agree that, when airgun legislation is devolved to this Parliament, we should use that power to get airguns off our streets?

Yes, I do.

The First Minister and I agree that we need tough action on airguns, yet the toll of knife crime is even greater, and the power to act already lies with us. In 2008, I asked the First Minister to act, but he would not agree. In 2009, I asked him to act, but he would not agree. In 2010, I brought legislation on knife crime to the chamber, but the First Minister voted it down. Labour’s knife crime petition has collected 30,000 signatures of support and, last weekend, an Edinburgh mother collected 2,000 signatures on her petition in only two days. Why does the First Minister refuse to listen to those people?

When we discuss the issue of airguns and the hope that the Parliament can act collectively to meet a major danger in Scottish society, we do ourselves credit, because we act as a Parliament. With regard to the range of other justice measures that have been taken by the Government and supported by other parties, should we not start from the assumption that everybody in the Parliament wants to take action to make Scottish society safer?

The measures that we have taken against knife crime do not mean that it is not still a huge problem in Scottish society. It is the most enormous problem, as recent tragic incidents have illustrated. However, some of the actions that have been taken, such as the specific action on knives and the funding of the violence reduction unit, have shown benefits in the recorded crime statistics.

I welcome the fact that violent crime in Scotland is falling, and I hope that Iain Gray will, whatever disagreements he has over the direction of policy, at least acknowledge that there is a determination from people across the Parliament to make Scotland safer.

Of course, and that is why the Labour-led Executive introduced the violence reduction unit in 2006 and that is why we increased the maximum sentence for knife crime. However, to say that the violent crime statistics are less bad is not good enough, and it does not tell the whole story. In Lothian and Borders, for example, the freedom of information response that I have here tells us that knife crime increased by 22 per cent last year.

We have to listen to the people who tell us that they want more action. On the streets of Blantyre, 2,000 people marched to demand action on knife crime. The murder of Reamonn Gormley shocked his community and appalled the country. Justice of the peace Caroline Johnstone even stepped down from the bench to campaign for mandatory jail sentences for knife carrying.

Although the First Minister talks of the action that he takes, he has legislated to send fewer knife criminals to jail, not more. Surely that is wrong.

I do not know whether it is possible for a question not to be worthy of the questioner but, as Iain Gray well knows, serious crime should be met with serious sentences, not short ones. He dismisses the progress that has been made, but I remind the Parliament that there has been a 30 per cent reduction in crimes of handling an offensive weapon since 2006-07, when the Government came to office. That is not a marginal decrease; it is a substantial decrease in that serious crime throughout Scotland.

The range of measures that have been taken—including the work of the violence reduction unit, which this Government has funded, incidentally—is the reason for that substantial reduction in crimes with offensive weapons. However, if I was asked to point to the single most important reason for the reduction, I would say that it is to do with the rate of detection, which is possible because we have 1,000 more police on the streets of Scotland’s communities.

Before Iain Gray casts aspersions on the dedication of any member or party in the Parliament to keeping Scotland safe and to finding solutions so that we can minimise tragedies like those that have occurred in Scotland recently, he should reflect on the fact that, if those police officers had not been patrolling the streets of Scotland, we would not, I believe, have had the lowest level of recorded crime in the country for 32 years or the 30 per cent reduction in crimes of handling an offensive weapon.

Let us accept two points: first, that the Parliament as a whole wants to keep this society safe; secondly, that many of the measures that have been supported by the Parliament and introduced by the Government have led to substantial improvements in the rates of the most serious crimes that affect the Scottish people.

Let us accept that, last year, there were still more than 7,000 crimes of handling an offensive weapon, almost 3,000 people were convicted for handling an offensive weapon and 44 per cent of murders in Scotland used a blade. That may be less, but it is still far too many. Let us also accept that 70 per cent of those who are convicted of knife crime do not receive a jail sentence of any kind.

Knife crime is a serious subject. In Blantyre, Gorebridge, Tranent, Edinburgh and Glasgow, five young lives were cut short in the past couple of weeks alone. There are 30,000 signatures on Labour’s petition. The Greenock Telegraph has collected 15,000 and the Paisley Daily Express has collected 10,000 more. Tracy Smyth collected 2,000 in Edinburgh last weekend. They all want knife criminals to go to jail, and the Labour Party stands with them. Why does the First Minister insist on standing in their way?

I have already pointed out to members the substantial reductions in recorded crime. I also point out that, for the first time ever, the fear of crime in Scotland is falling. That speaks volumes for the effectiveness of the justice measures that have been taken.

I pointed out the substantial numbers of additional police officers throughout Scotland, not one of whom would have been delivered if we had had a Labour Administration, because not one was pledged in the Labour manifesto. One police officer is Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, who devised and led the violence reduction unit, which Iain Gray and I agree has been extremely successful. He said:

“I’ve been a cop for 34 years. If I thought locking people up the first time they were carrying a knife and giving them four years in the jail would work, I’d be your man. Jail doesn’t work. We need early intervention, restricting access to alcohol and knives.”

We talk about the booze and blade culture in Scotland. Of course, we all want to act against the blade culture, but only some in the Parliament were prepared to act against the booze culture. [Applause.]

Order.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-2914)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the immediate future, but I met him last Monday in London.

Everyone agrees that delayed discharge from hospital is bad for the patient, the patient’s family and the hospital. The goal is to ensure that no patient who needs continuing care waits longer than six weeks to leave hospital and get that care. I give credit where it is due: in April last year, that goal was reached. However, from January last year to January this year, the number of patients who have waited more than six weeks has not just steadily increased but doubled. Why has the First Minister allowed that to happen?

I welcome Annabel Goldie’s acknowledgement that, although delayed discharges have not been eliminated, they are running at far lower levels than at any time since the Parliament was established. I note that Dr Richard Simpson said on 25 June 2009 that

“The reduction from 2,000 delayed discharges to zero ... is excellent”,—[Official Report, 25 June 2009; c 18935.]

so at least some Labour members are prepared to acknowledge that.

We are working extremely hard to return to zero delayed discharges, because one delayed discharge in Scotland is one too many.

Surely the goal should be that no one waits more than six weeks in any month, any quarter or any year. The problem for the First Minister is that, however the figures are measured—whether they are for less or more than six weeks—more patients are being kept in hospital for longer. Those people do not want or need to be in hospital and would make better progress out of hospital.

Is it not the case that we need to change the structure and cut bureaucracy? We also need the national health service to drive forward a new agenda. Surely the First Minister agrees that that would be made possible by transferring budget from local government to the NHS, so that the NHS is in control. That would ensure that our patients receive the care that they need when they need it. Surely even he can see the sense in that.

According to the last census, 168 patients were delayed for more than six weeks. That is 168 too many, even if the figure is lower than the many thousands under previous Administrations.

As for the action that we must take, I point Annabel Goldie to two matters. Such issues emphasise the critical importance, even in these times of extraordinary pressure on public spending, of protecting our national health service budget. She and I agree on that and the Administration will continue to protect that budget.

I also point Annabel Goldie to the aim and emphasis in the agreement with local authorities and to the £70 million change fund that will help services for older people to be redesigned. We have allocated £70 million for health service and local authority partners to use in the coming year, along with the voluntary and third sectors, to facilitate service design that ensures that older people remain independent in their own homes and focuses on reducing unnecessary hospital admissions and speeding up discharge after a crisis.

I am sure that Annabel Goldie welcomes that substantial initiative, even in times of extraordinary financial pressure, which will help to address the problem of delayed discharge.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

3. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2915)

I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the near future.

This morning’s audit report on the First Minister’s local police force says that Grampian Police

“has a track record of strong financial management and ... has reported efficiency savings in excess of targets.”

When do ministers plan to publish the costs of their national police force?

Very shortly indeed. Much of the discussion and debate among the chief constables and other interested parties in Scotland has been lively and informative. I think that there is widespread agreement that changes in the structure of the police service offer grounds for hope for substantial efficiencies—

No, there is not.

Apart from Mike Rumbles, there is agreement that changes in the structure of police forces offer substantial efficiencies. Those who advocate such changes have to demonstrate whether that is entirely compatible with the local accountability of our police service.

I think that the figures will not be available until the end of this session of the Parliament. If the First Minister corrects me on that, I would be delighted to be so corrected. Why have ministers decided to ensure that they never have to answer a question on the numbers? They have left it too late to give an answer. Is the First Minister not aware that the last time the Government tried to take calculations to the national policing board, the numbers were thrown out by everyone from chief constables to local government? Does he not recognise that his national police force will cut local policing across Scotland? All bar one of our chief constables are against it. Why does the Government want to spend money that it does not have on a proposal that simply will not cut crime?

Most people are coming to the debate in the hope and expectation that we can find a more efficient way to run our police service, including in times of great financial pressure, for which the Liberal Democrat party must bear some responsibility. We want to find ways to protect front-line policing and to continue the effective patrolling of our streets and communities that has resulted in a substantial reduction in recorded crime over the past four years. Most people are approaching the debate with a view that organisational change may offer such efficiencies to enable us to police Scotland not only democratically and accountably but efficiently. Tavish Scott seems to have made up his mind already that the present structure is the best of all structures for the police in the best of all worlds. He is wrong about that. Whatever their position in the evolving debate, most people who are participating in it are trying to reconcile finding the greater efficiencies that are necessary given the financial pressures on public spending with democratic accountability. If we join the debate on that basis, I am sure that we will come to an effective conclusion. I intend to be answering questions on that effective conclusion for some considerable time to come.

I will take a supplementary from Jamie Stone.

William Skinner, from the village of Inver in Easter Ross, works in the oil sector. As I speak, he is alone, without communication, trapped in a flat in Tripoli which, as we know, is a very dangerous place to be. His three workmates in the city are trying to get him out so that he can be with them. Will the First Minister use whatever means are at his disposal to get the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—or whoever, the Prime Minister even—to do something so that those people are brought home to safety without any further delay?

Yes, I will. I hope to be able to say a bit more on the matter. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom Government decided that the Scottish Government would not be allowed to participate in a COBRA meeting this morning. I regret that decision. We have a substantial interest and duty of care at present to Scottish oil workers who are in Libya. As we have always done in COBRA meetings, on whatever subject, we respect all confidences and would have gone into the meeting in as constructive a way as possible. For completeness, I should add that the Foreign Secretary has agreed to speak to me this afternoon. I will relay to him the views of Jamie Stone and his concern for his constituent, as well as urging further effective action to secure the safety of all Scottish citizens and, indeed, nationals of all countries in Libya.

I will take a further supplementary from Robert Brown.

We all are anxious to see the success of the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth games, which will be a huge event for the city and country. However, is the First Minister aware of reports that 46 milestones that the organising committee set may not have been met? It was reported that the completion date for the accommodation plan has slipped by nine months and that there is still no agreement on the crucial broadcasting deal with the BBC. Can he confirm or deny those worrying reports? Is there slippage and, if so, why? What reassurance can he give the chamber that the Commonwealth games project is on track, as we all want to see it?

I saw the report and Robert Brown’s comments on it. I assure him that the organisation of the Glasgow Commonwealth games—Scotland’s Commonwealth games—in 2014 is on time and on budget and is proceeding according to plan. The report, which I happened to read, was somewhat short on substantive detail. The fact that it cited as one of its major concerns the Christmas party of the Commonwealth games staff suggested that it was lacking in some of the substantive issues that I would have expected such an investigative report to highlight. I am happy to reassure the member that Glasgow’s Commonwealth games are on time, on budget and well organised. With great co-operation between the Government and Glasgow City Council, they will be an enormous success for Glasgow and for Scotland.

---

Universities (Support)

4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to support universities. (S3F-2918)

The Scottish Government has a proud record of achievement in higher education. Our financial commitments to universities next year will exceed £1.1 billion. That means that we will have invested record amounts in further and higher education—more than £7 billion over this session. Despite the cuts that Westminster has imposed on the Scottish Government budget, we have secured agreement with the sector that will see the same number of university places available next year as there are this year. That is a substantial achievement and a tribute to both the universities and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.

The First Minister will be aware of proposals by the University of Glasgow to cut many courses, including foreign languages, adult learning courses and nursing. He will also be aware of the enormous opposition to those cuts from students and academics alike and from Mario Conti, the Archbishop of Glasgow, who has expressed concern that education could end up being confined to

“some particular and narrow end”.

Does the First Minister agree that universities have a duty to be all-inclusive and that the proposals to which I have referred would be detrimental not only to the University of Glasgow but to Scotland as a whole?

I entirely agree that universities must be inclusive. The contribution that they make to our country, citizens and regions is enormous. If they want to make changes to that provision, they must be open and transparent. It is essential that they think of the breadth and depth of education and ensure that they honour historic commitments in that regard.

Just about every public institution in Scotland, with the exception of the health service, is undergoing a real-terms reduction in public spending. It could not be otherwise, given the £1.3 billion of revenue and capital cuts that are coming our way from the Westminster Government. However, the University of Glasgow seems to believe that it is under more pressure than other institutions. Some of the opponents of the plans dispute that that is the case. Openness and transparency, and regard for and honouring of historic commitments, are especially important in the case of the University of Glasgow.

Does the First Minister share my concerns about the proposed closure of the department of adult and continuing education at the University of Glasgow? Does he recognise that the department has been vital in widening access to the University of Glasgow and in establishing links with the local community, and that it has enhanced the university’s reputation and ensured that individuals from all backgrounds get to university? Will he assure me today that he will use all his influence to ensure that that long-standing and valuable department continues to play such an important role?

I agree with Pauline McNeill. The point that she makes and the example that she cites are one of the fundamentally important historic commitments to which I referred in my previous answer.

Does the First Minister agree with Universities Scotland, Lord Sutherland, Sir Andrew Cubie, a range of people in the sector and the Scottish Conservatives that, if we are to continue to have world-class universities, which all of us want, there must be a graduate contribution?

No. We will proceed on the basis that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has set out, which includes establishing what the financial challenge for Scottish universities is in the next term. The cross-party meeting of 1 March will be the next milestone in agreeing that process.

As I mentioned earlier, institutions throughout the public services are under pressure. How could it be otherwise? Elizabeth Smith should reflect on the fact that, although there will be huge funding pressure on our higher education sector in the coming year, as she will have seen from the plans outlined by John Swinney, this Administration has no plans to withdraw wholesale from the public funding of higher education, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid out in the plans at Westminster.

The examination on 1 March will give us a figure to work from, but it is important to realise that, whatever financial challenges have to be met, the fact that this Administration—and, I hope, this Parliament—will not withdraw wholesale from the funding of higher education is a substantial platform on which to find a distinctively Scottish solution that will leave us in a better position than our colleagues south of the border.

---

INEOS and PetroChina (Meetings)

5. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government last met INEOS and PetroChina. (S3F-2931)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth met INEOS representatives at the Grangemouth refinery on 10 January.

Did the cabinet secretary receive any assurances about the continuation of production and jobs at Grangemouth? When the cabinet secretary visited on the day of the announcement, why did he not take time to speak to the workforce? Does the First Minister share my concern that the major stakeholders in Grangemouth were not consulted? Why has the First Minister not responded to a letter of 4 February from the Grangemouth workforce raising its concerns?

I would be happy to meet the Grangemouth workforce and I will return to that point in a second.

We received assurances from Calum Maclean, the chief executive officer of INEOS Refining, who said:

“These agreements will help secure the long term future of jobs and skills at Grangemouth and Lavera, in partnership with one of the world's largest energy companies … They present a clear opportunity for INEOS to progress its aim of forming strategic partnerships which help grow and strengthen its business. The agreements will provide further investment in our refineries, securing their competitiveness in European markets”.

As I am sure Cathy Peattie would be first to acknowledge, I have been deeply involved in the Grangemouth refinery. I was deeply involved in 2008, when action by the Government helped to reconcile and settle the industrial dispute that was passing a cloud over the future of the refinery. That action, which was welcomed by unions and management at Grangemouth, was in contrast to the advice that I received from the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who told me not to interfere in such matters.

Secondly, we met the workforce in 2009, when the Scottish Government put forward a record regional selective assistance grant to support the key capital spending that was required to give the Grangemouth refinery a future. That was another direct involvement of this Government in the future of Grangemouth refinery.

I will be delighted to respond to the letters from the workforce and, when I do so, I will ensure that the Government continues to intervene wherever possible to protect jobs and livelihoods in Scotland and that it does not go down the foolish road of the laissez-faire attitude that was advocated by the previous Labour Government.

---

Wind Turbines (Forestry Commission)

6. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with energy companies regarding the development of wind turbines on Forestry Commission land. (S3F-2930)

The Forestry Commission has completed a procurement exercise to identify companies that will work in partnership with it. That is a substantial exercise and offers huge opportunities to unlock Scotland’s massive resource potential of further forestry and of renewable energy.

In light of the fact that more than 24,000 hectares of productive forestry land has been lost since 2005-06, the First Minister will understand why the Confederation of Forest Industries and others have raised concerns about that type of development. Will the First Minister tell Parliament how many hectares of woodland will be felled due to the proposed energy developments, and what impact that will have on timber production, downstream jobs and carbon sequestration? Will the Government’s tree planting targets be met this year or indeed at any time in the foreseeable future or will wind farm developments in our publicly owned forests further reduce our ability to produce much-needed home-grown timber?

No is the answer to that last point. Such developments will not reduce our ability to produce home-grown timber. I am happy to confirm to John Scott that the Government’s incredibly ambitious target to plant 100 million trees over a five-year period is on target. For the benefit of members, that amounts to the planting of four trees per person per year. That substantial, world-beating target will be achieved.

I say to John Scott that one way in which we are achieving that is by mobilising our natural resources to generate revenue through initiatives such as renewable energy in the forestry estate, which will not just create thousands of jobs in Scotland and generate up to 2GW of power but generate revenue for the Forestry Commission that will allow it to meet its target of planting the forests that Scotland will need.

We started a little late, so I will take a final supplementary from Lewis Macdonald.

Large contracts go to large companies. Was the decision to award a small number of large contracts for renewable energy development in Scotland’s forests taken by ministers or by the Forestry Commission?

All decisions are based on the procurement process, which is evaluated by an independent consultant.

I point out to the member that, of the companies that he seems to be decrying, Scottish Power Renewables is headquartered in Glasgow and has 168 out of the 6,000 staff that Scottish Power as a whole has in Scotland; E.ON Renewables has 31 staff in Scotland, offices in Lockerbie and a new office in Inverness; Fred Olsen Renewables’s sister company, Natural Power, which has 95 staff, is headquartered in Scotland; and PNE Wind UK Ltd has staff members in Edinburgh. In addition, in the previous round, for hydro energy, a contract was awarded to Green Highland Renewables, a small company, all of whose staff are based in Perth.

Therefore, the member should not allow himself to be misled by suggestions in some parts of the press that those companies are anything other than fantastic, bona fide companies that are employed in useful activities and which have thousands of people working for them in Scotland. I am sure that the member would not wish any of those workers who are watching this broadcast to think that he was casting aspersions on any of those excellent, Scotland-based companies.