Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-2220)
Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Figures this week show that 58 per cent of all murders that are committed in Scotland are committed with a knife; an all-time high. Next week, Labour will move an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill that would ensure that, if someone is caught carrying a knife, they will go to jail. Will the Scottish National Party support us?
I am sure that Iain Gray would be the first to acknowledge that, while we all understand the seriousness of knife crime and homicide in Scotland, the figures that were released this week show the lowest level of homicide in Scotland for 10 years. That is not a satisfactory position and these are huge issues. Nonetheless, we should recognise the extent of that and put the figures into perspective. As Iain Gray also knows, the average sentence for knife crime in Scotland has increased under this Government from where the previous Government left it. There are substantial indications that significant progress is being made in the work that is being done on gangs and violence. We do not support his proposition of an automatic jail sentence for anyone who is caught carrying a knife.
The First Minister should also be aware that the figures that were released this week show that knife murders have increased over the past three years. He must know that the longer jail sentences for knife crime are down to the increase in the maximum jail sentence from two to four years, which was introduced by the previous Scottish Executive. The fact remains that the vast majority of convicted knife criminals do not go to jail. The First Minister should listen to knife crime campaigners such as John Muir. As the First Minister will be aware, Mr Muir’s son Damian was murdered in a knife attack. Mr Muir has said that if Labour’s policy had been in place, his son might well still be with us. Is the First Minister saying that Mr Muir is wrong?
I and every member of the Parliament have nothing but sympathy and respect for the victims of crime and their families. Once Iain Gray has had the opportunity to check his facts about the parliamentary process, I know that he will want to acknowledge that it was Stewart Maxwell who moved the amendment to increase the maximum sentence in the legislation to which he referred. That was an important amendment, which the Parliament carried. It means that 478 knife carriers have been prosecuted on indictment rather than on summary complaint, which has allowed greater sentencing power for the judge. Convictions have been made in more than three quarters of all concluded cases and 83 per cent of those convicted have been jailed. The average sentence for knife possession on indictment is 13 months and 24 days. The average prison sentence for possession of a knife increased from 161 days in 2006-07 to 217 days in 2007-08.
In another comparison with previous Administrations, Iain Gray will also want to acknowledge the change in violence reduction unit funding. In 1997, there was no funding for the violence reduction unit whereas there was in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, by which time support had doubled—under this SNP Government. There was no specific funding to focus on gang violence under the Tories or, indeed, the Labour-Liberal coalition, but this Government has authorised substantial funding.
When we deal with issues on which we share a joint and overwhelming concern—just as we share a joint and overwhelming concern for the affected families—it behoves us as a Parliament to recognise not only the seriousness of the situation but the initiatives that exist and the progress that is being made. That would be a better context in which to debate the issue.
This is about an overwhelming concern. Over recent months, I have helped to collect signatures on a petition in support of the Labour amendment that will be debated in committee next week and in support of knife campaigners such as Mr Muir. In my time, I have collected signatures on many petitions, but I have never had people queue up to sign a petition as happened with this one. Indeed, 30,000 Scots have signed the petition in support of Mr Muir and Labour’s amendment on knife crime. Does the First Minister not think that our absolute obligation to the victims of knife crime and those 30,000 Scots is to listen to them and stand up for them?
As a Parliament, we share an absolute obligation to address these issues. That is exactly what this Government has done. I have set out the progress that has been made on the issue in a detailed and factual way.
It is not enough.
I hear Johann Lamont say that it is not enough, but it is substantially more than was done by the previous Administration, in which she was a minister.
The difficulty that I have with politicians who see this issue as a matter of political or party advantage is that the argument that Iain Gray is now putting forward corresponds neither with what he and his colleagues did when they were in government in this Parliament nor with what his colleagues at Westminster are doing south of the border. The best way for the Parliament to proceed is to acknowledge the substantial progress that has been made on this hugely difficult issue, the fact that we have the lowest crime level in Scotland for a generation and the fact that, thanks to some parties that are represented in the Parliament, we have the highest recorded number of police officers in Scotland in our history. The Parliament should acknowledge that those things would not have happened and did not happen under a Labour-Liberal Administration and have happened under this Administration.
The action that we took previously on knife crime was to increase the maximum sentence. I acknowledge that we now believe that that was not enough. I believe that because two thirds of convicted knife criminals get no jail sentence at all and two thirds of those who do get sentences of six months or less. It worries me that the First Minister is planning to scrap all of those six-month sentences. It is no good the First Minister saying that this is party politicisation. The fact of the matter is that he is seeking to end six-month sentences—we will oppose that—and that the policy that he is pursuing will allow more than 600 convicted knife criminals every year to avoid jail completely. That is not being tough on knife crime, is not doing enough and is not what the people of Scotland want. Will the First Minister admit that and support our amendment next week?
Let me see whether I can crystallise the issue for Iain Gray and the Labour Party in one statistic. The average prison sentence for possession of a knife increased from 161 days in 2006-07 to 217 days in 2007-08. I point out to Iain Gray that 161 days, under the previous Administration, is less than six months and that 217 days is more than six months, in line with the Scottish National Party’s belief that people who commit serious offences should go to prison for serious amounts of time. That is the basis on which we are addressing criminal justice reforms.
The Parliament should acknowledge that this hugely serious issue, which affects many people in Scotland, goes deep into the nature of society and is related to abuse of drink, abuse of drugs and gang violence. It should acknowledge that those issues must be tackled, as this Administration is doing, and should understand the context in which crime takes place. Above all, it should understand—as every member of the community of Scotland understands—that the best basic protection for the community is to have more police officers on the streets of Scotland, like the 1,000 more police officers who are there today, compared with absolutely zero under the Labour Administration’s proposals at the 2007 election.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2221)
I have no plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Does the First Minister accept that the humility and candour of his deputy yesterday were in stark contrast to the self-satisfied, bombastic, tub-thumping bravura of someone else whom we know?
I am not convinced that the SNP leopard has changed its spots, so let us test it. Will Mr Salmond say sorry to students for breaking his promise on dumping their debt? Will he say sorry to first-time buyers for breaking his promise on £2,000 grants? Will he say sorry to the people of Scotland for breaking his promises on class sizes, local income tax and physical education in schools? Will he say sorry for breaking his promise to pay council tax on Bute house, despite criticising his predecessor for not doing so?
Yesterday, the Deputy First Minister was big enough to admit her mistakes. Will the First Minister now admit his?
I thank Annabel Goldie for responding to the call for a new consensus by the Deputy First Minister yesterday. I said last week that I supported Nicola Sturgeon 110 per cent. That went up to 200 per cent when I heard her outstanding statement to the Parliament yesterday. Sometimes it is better to catch the moment and to acknowledge the points that the Deputy First Minister made yesterday.
On this Government’s record, let me point out to Annabel Goldie that the students of Scotland are celebrating the return of free education. That was delivered by this Government and opposed by the Conservative party, which would still have the students of Scotland paying for their education.
That is one of the essential issues as we look forward in this hugely difficult and threatening public expenditure landscape. The reason why Annabel Goldie’s party is not and perhaps never will be trusted by the people of Scotland is that, when it comes to delivery of essential services, rights and obligations, people believe that the Conservative party reaches first for charging. It would have students paying for their education, and it may want to have people paying for their national health service, but there is a huge majority of people in Scotland who believe that public services should be defended—against a Labour Government or a potential Conservative Government at Westminster.
Ah well, test failed—bombastic as ever.
Now that we have established that sorry really is the hardest word for Alex Salmond to say, let us move on to the immediate challenges that confront our country. Scotland is facing a major cut in spending as a direct result of Labour’s debt legacy, so why, when teacher numbers have dropped by nearly 2,000, has the SNP Government employed another 1,000 civil servants? Why, when local government warns that free personal care may need to be cut, is the SNP Government employing another 1,000 civil servants? Why, when Audit Scotland criticises the SNP Government’s 2.5 per cent efficiency savings as not enough, does Alex Salmond bolster his own staff by 1,000?
I will say sorry. Sorry, First Minister—that record is not good enough. Will the First Minister get his priorities right, take the tough decisions and do what the rest of the country is doing and tighten his belt?
I am sorry that Annabel Goldie is not fully familiar with the facts before she states her case.
Let us take a couple of the facts. First, the budget, which Annabel Goldie and her colleagues properly supported a few weeks ago in this Parliament, proposed a substantial decline in the administration budget—largely salaries—of the central Government of Scotland. That is a fact.
Secondly, far from the description that Annabel Goldie has given to the Parliament—I am not suggesting for a minute that she is deliberately misleading, or attempting to mislead, me or her colleagues—the Audit Scotland report actually congratulates the Scottish Government and other public authorities in Scotland on exceeding the efficiency targets in the past financial year and on reinvesting those efficiencies in front-line public services.
Audit Scotland goes on to say that the perspective from either a Labour or Tory Government in Westminster is one not of sensible efficiency savings reinvested in front-line services but of dramatic cuts in public spending from Westminster into Scotland. That is what Audit Scotland warns about in its report today.
Let me say to Annabel Goldie that, in addition to the cuts that she has in common with the Labour Party, there are many members of the Conservative party who want to impose specific cuts on Scottish expenditure. Even more extraordinarily, the leadership of her party wants to cut the budget for next year that this Parliament has passed and every local authority in Scotland is currently passing—in other words, it wants to jeopardise the fragile economic recovery in Scotland.
Those are the facts for which the Conservatives should say sorry. Until they recant, they will never be trusted by the people of Scotland.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-2222)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The Royal Bank of Scotland announced a £3 billion loss this morning, but the bank will still pay £1 billion in staff bonuses. Taxpayers, who own 84 per cent of the bank, now find that the Labour Government signed off those bonuses. That is not right or fair. What is the First Minister’s policy on bonuses?
I have made it clear, I think in response to Tavish Scott, that I believe that institutions in the public sector should follow public sector pay norms. I have said that repeatedly and I think that it is a reasonable position to put forward. When an institution is in the private sector, there would be a case for legislation and restraint if the bonus culture was undermining the context of the financial system. That seems to me to be a clearly stated policy, which I state again for Tavish Scott.
It would be helpful if the First Minister would clarify his Government’s actions in this area, because I have a freedom of information response that shows that his Government’s economic development quango, Scottish Enterprise, paid £912,000 in bonuses last year. Scottish Enterprise is the First Minister’s agency and he has spent three years reorganising it. His Government’s top priority should be to create jobs, even if we see today, yet again, that it is not. Unemployment in Scotland is continuing to rise, the claimant count is up by 36,000, the economy is still in recession and there is now a squeeze on public spending. Bonuses in Scottish Enterprise sit in the First Minister’s in-tray; how much does he think should be paid out in bonuses to Scottish Enterprise staff from the public purse this year?
Tavish Scott is well aware of the initiatives that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has taken to restrain pay increases and bonuses in the public sector in Scotland. As we have debated a number of times, the actions that we would want to take are rather restrained by the fact that the contracts under which many people are working were signed off by the Labour-Liberal Administration in Scotland—[Interruption.] I know that that is an unpleasant fact for many Liberal Democrats, but it is the case.
On things that are under our control, Tavish Scott knows that ministerial salaries—both as ministers and as MSPs—have been frozen over more than a year and that senior civil servants have followed the same course of action, under Mr Swinney’s proposals. In other words, there is a record of action on things over which we have control and a record of encouragement on matters in relation to which we face a contract that was signed by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration.
On forecasts of cuts, I agree that cuts will jeopardise fragile economic recovery in Scotland. However, let us recall that it was the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg who, dissatisfied with Tory cuts and Labour cuts, called for “savage” cuts at the Liberal Democrat conference, because he thought that the Tories and Labour were too wishy-washy. I know that the Liberal Democrats have a federal structure, but when the Liberal Democrat leader at Westminster is calling for savage cuts I wonder how Tavish Scott can say that he wants to resist such cuts in Scotland. No doubt that is the Liberal Democrat policy of single transferable cuts.
There we go. Annabel Goldie was quite right. We heard bluster, bluster and more bluster from the First Minister. I did not ask about cuts; I asked about Scottish Enterprise, and he did not answer the question.
I remind the First Minister of Scotland that his Government signed the contract for the new chief executive of Scottish Enterprise and that his Government agreed to pay that person the same salary of £200,000 as the previous chief executive was paid, despite the fact that his Government had cut the organisation in half. That is his record.
Tavish Scott has been told about the record of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth on seeking restraint in the public sector throughout Scotland, and he has been told what the inhibitions are.
I cannot agree that Tavish Scott did not mention cuts—I am sure that the record will verify that. He did mention cuts. He argued that cuts were jeopardising economic recovery in Scotland. I know that this is an inconvenient truth, but the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom said that he wanted savage cuts implemented across the public sector in Scotland. If Tavish Scott is going to recant from that, that is all well and welcome, because better that one sinner repenteth. I hope that he gives that advice to his leader in England.
I will take a constituency question from Mike Rumbles.
Over the past three years, I have warned the Scottish Government about the danger of a landslide at the Bervie braes in my constituency. Last week, I told the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth that my constituents were living in fear of a landslide. Aberdeenshire Council has spent £250,000 on finding a solution to the problem, which could have been fixed.
We have repeatedly asked the Scottish Government for help before any landslide occurred but, this morning, three occurred. Just half an hour ago, I spoke to the council, which is in the process of evacuating more than 65 households around the Bervie braes to put them out of further danger. No alternative accommodation is available to half of my constituents there. I ask the First Minister directly, as I have asked him before, for financial assistance to help the council to deal with this dangerous situation and to take action now before it is entirely too late.
A landslip was reported at the inland end of the Bervie braes at 6.03 this morning. One property has been affected; there were no reports of extensive damage, but that is being investigated at present. Police are on the scene as we speak. The council is active, will assess the situation and will consider the controlled evacuation about which Mike Rumbles spoke. A further update is expected now once a full assessment of the situation has been made.
I have every sympathy for residents in this position. I had the same circumstance in Pennan in my constituency just over two years ago. I am sure that Mike Rumbles, under his duty as a constituency member of the Parliament, will want to acknowledge that, only last week, the finance secretary met Aberdeenshire Council officials to progress the issue. It involves the expenditure of public money affecting private land and private householders. The finance secretary has already shown a substantial willingness to help, and that help will be appreciated by people who are affected by this difficult situation.
Strathclyde Partnership for Transport
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on recently reported concerns regarding the use of public funds by members of Strathclyde partnership for transport. (S3F-2227)
The Scottish Government is, of course, concerned at the recent departure of the chairperson and other senior figures of Strathclyde partnership for transport. Any investigation of the circumstances behind those departures is for others, but we also need to consider whether there is a case for a wider review of SPT. I am aware that the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has already proposed such a review as part of its forward work programme.
I thank the First Minister for his detailed reply. However, given that serious questions have also been raised over what the leader of Glasgow City Council knew about the sorry affair, Labour cronyism and lack of parity within the organisation, does the First Minister agree with me that the people of Glasgow and Strathclyde deserve better, that they deserve to know the truth and that an even wider investigation than the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee one, in which the people concerned are called to explain themselves, is essential?
I appreciate Sandra White’s concerns and agree that SPT—and, indeed, all public bodies—must seek to be as open, transparent and representative as possible.
In the first instance, the current legislation leaves the appointment of chairpersons and their deputies in the hands of the partnership itself. Therefore, we will press SPT to reform itself. However, if that reform does not materialise, we will consider amending the existing order that defines its constitution and membership. I also encourage the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee to consider those issues as part of its proposed broader review of regional transport partnerships throughout Scotland.
I hear some discontent rumbling among the Labour members about that. I point out to them that the present complexion of the 20 councillor members of the partnership about which Sandra White is concerned—concern about which is shared by many across political parties—is 12 Labour, four Scottish National Party, two Tory, one Liberal Democrat and one independent. In terms of the structure of Scottish local government in the west of Scotland and elsewhere in Scotland, that does not, on the face of it, look like a broadly based, cross-party organisation. I have to say that, when an organisation hits difficulties, a broad cross-party base, openness and transparency would be of considerable assistance to it.
However uncomfortable it is for the Labour Party, those are the facts behind the Strathclyde partnership for transport situation. I know that we all would want to address them in the fashion that I have described.
That subject was also addressed during general question time, so we will move straight to question 5.
Rail Dispute
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to assist in resolving the current dispute between First ScotRail and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. (S3F-2232)
The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change met ScotRail on 17 November and the RMT on 5 January to consider the matter. In response to the concerns that the RMT expressed about safety, Transport Scotland has written to the three independent safety bodies—the Office of Rail Regulation, the Railway Standards and Safety Branch and the Rail Accident and Investigation Board—and received appropriate assurances on the safety issues behind the dispute.
The Scottish Government will continue to invest in developing rail services, including the 130 new ScotRail jobs that are being created by the Airdrie to Bathgate project. That increased level of investment is creating jobs as well as increasing job security for those who work on our railways. We continue to urge the RMT and ScotRail to resolve an unnecessary dispute.
The First Minister is right to mention safety, because the dispute is about putting passenger safety before private profit.
The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has caused a breakdown in trust and has inflamed the dispute. Only last month, at the meeting that the First Minister mentioned, the minister told the unions that no final decision had been made, but yesterday we learned that Transport Scotland had already accepted First ScotRail’s proposal to remove conductors from the Airdrie to Bathgate line. To show that his Government is not siding with the bosses against the workers, will the First Minister publish all the correspondence and documentation on the issue, meet the union, demand that First ScotRail honour the agreement to retain conductors, as guaranteed in a letter from First ScotRail to the RMT, and confirm that there will be no taxpayer subsidy to First ScotRail as a result of strike action? Will the First Minister now face up to his responsibility, as his Government reissued the contract to First ScotRail without tendering or changing it?
The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has already met the RMT, and I am sure that he would be happy to publish all correspondence in a way that is compatible with commercial confidentiality.
Elaine Smith will have to accept the details. Conductor operation of doors would require an additional £1.4 million of modifications to existing trains and a significant delay to the start of the new service. It is true that 56 per cent of ScotRail journeys already operate with a driver and ticket examiner and it is also true, of course, that the previous Administration opened lines on that basis. I cannot believe that it would have done so if it thought that there was a safety argument against that. [Interruption.] I know that such facts are inconvenient for the Labour Party.
On the position of ScotRail and industrial action, ScotRail’s position was also negotiated by the previous Administration.
I hope and believe that it is possible for the RMT and ScotRail to have productive talks and to resolve an unnecessary dispute, and I think that all members share that hope. If the Labour Party believes the safety argument that Elaine Smith has put forward, it should consider why the new railway to Larkhall was opened in 2005 by the previous Administration with a driver-ticket examiner operation? If it thinks that the arrangement with ScotRail is dreadful, why on earth did it negotiate it in the first place?
Electoral Commission (Independence Referendum)
To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Electoral Commission regarding the conduct of the proposed referendum on independence. (S3F-2229)
The Scottish Government has had regular meetings with the Electoral Commission to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the referendum (Scotland) bill. The Government has today published a consultation draft of our referendum proposals, which will allow the people of Scotland their say on their country’s constitutional future.
The Government has indeed published yet another consultation document on a referendum bill, two and a half years after it published its previous one. Why do we not just cut to the chase? We will have a general election in a few weeks’ time in which we will all have a vote. Why do we not agree that, in the unlikely event of the majority of voters in Scotland voting for the Scottish National Party, we will go independent, but if the majority vote for Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, Scotland will remain part of the United Kingdom, and we will get on with tackling the recession and stop wasting millions of pounds on the First Minister’s glorified opinion poll?
I welcome David McLetchie’s acceptance of democracy for a decision on independence. No doubt, he would accept the democratic decision in a referendum on Scottish independence.
The other unionist parties should beware. Members will probably recognise that David McLetchie, like Annabel Goldie, who spelled this out in a speech only a few weeks ago, is deciding to incorporate votes for the Labour and Liberal parties into the mandate that any future Conservative Government would hold at Westminster. People should beware that they might vote Liberal or Labour and end up supporting a Tory Government at Westminster. I am glad that David McLetchie gave me the opportunity to state that.
On the issue of dilly-dallying about referendums, I have a fantastic appreciation for and understanding of an Assembly member in the National Assembly for Wales who said:
“I’m beginning to think there are some shadowy figures within the Labour Party who want to stop this referendum from happening at all.”
Nick Bourne, the leader of the Conservative party in the National Assembly of Wales, is correct that the National Assembly and everyone else should support the people of Wales in determining their own future. I just hope that we get Mr Bourne here in Scotland, leading the Scottish Conservatives and accepting the principle of national self-determination.
In 2003, the First Minister hailed the Electoral Commission as
“the guardians of fairness in our democratic process”,
so why is the commission not good enough for his draft referendum bill now? How long will the SNP drag out its plans at the expense of prioritising Scots during the recession? Will the First Minister tell me clearly what his planned date is for a referendum, or is he going to drag that out, too? I hope that he agrees that the Parliament deserves a clear answer.
Pauline McNeill has asked the “Bring it on” question. If the Labour Party is committing today—as it once did, as recently as 2008—to vote for referendum legislation, I will have the bill in the Parliament tomorrow. I see Iain Gray waving his hands about in that usual inept way that he has. He reversed his position three times in the space of three months in 2008. I merely say that if the cock can crow three times for Iain Gray in 2008 and if he can change his position three times in three months, let him follow Pauline McNeill in the new declaration of the Labour Party to bring it on and let the people of Scotland determine our own constitutional future.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is there anything in the standing orders that allows you to remind the First Minister that his microphone is on and there is no need to shout hysterically at us week after week?
The manner of the First Minister’s delivery is a matter for him.
12:30 Meeting suspended until 14:15.