At First Minister's question time today, questions will be answered by the Deputy First Minister.
Cabinet (Meetings)
I welcome the Deputy First Minister back to First Minister's question time. This is becoming something of a habit for him.
I am sure that I speak for the whole chamber when I say that we wish the First Minister, the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport and the Irish Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation well on their visit to Stockholm for the UEFA council, where they are promoting our bid for Euro 2008. I thank Mr Swinney and Mr McLetchie for the generous words of support for the bid that they sent on behalf of the SNP and the Conservative party.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer and repeat our support for the Euro 2008 bid.
The view of the Liberal Democrats and the policy of the Executive is that there should be a moratorium on the commercialisation of GM crops. That is our position. However, as Mr Swinney knows, it would be illegal for ministers to prohibit field trials unless there were particular legal grounds for doing so. Despite claims to the contrary, no credible evidence has emerged to change the views of the Executive's scientific advisers on the matter.
The Deputy First Minister may want to re-examine the words that he has just used. Mr Finnie has said quite clearly that
As I am sure Mr Swinney heard, it is not accepted that what he claims proves certain points in fact proves those points. It has been made clear on numerous occasions that it would be illegal for ministers to withdraw consent for a particular release in the absence of sound scientific evidence that such a release would pose a threat to human health or the environment. The advice to the Executive from its scientific advisers has not changed: GM crops can be grown safely on the site at Munlochy and elsewhere. I would not encourage any of my colleagues to act illegally. Is that what Mr Swinney is suggesting?
No—I am asking the Deputy First Minister to start listening to independent scientific information, of which there are 31 examples on the list that I will make available to him today.
In asking those questions, Mr Swinney must also answer questions. Who in the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment is he questioning? Whose scientific credibility is he questioning? ACRE consists of independent scientists from whom the Executive takes advice before it makes decisions. I assure Mr Swinney and the Parliament that those decisions are certainly not taken lightly.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-1844)
The First Minister will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland on Monday next and they will discuss issues such as health, drugs and Euro 2008.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer. I hope that the First Minister and the secretary of state will also find time to discuss the crime situation in Scotland. As the Deputy First Minister will be aware, the level of serious crime is on the increase. Just when we need our police officers more than ever, it appears from yesterday's Scottish Police Federation conference that we are in the appalling position of police officers seeking the right to strike. I emphasise that I would not support such action for a moment, but we would all be foolish if we did not recognise that what is happening is symptomatic of massive discontent and disillusionment among police officers. In those circumstances, what representations has the Deputy First Minister made, or what representations does he intend to make, to the Home Secretary on behalf of Scotland's police forces on the current review of police pay and conditions?
As Mr McLetchie and the chamber know, the right to strike is prohibited under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967—the provision has been part of policing since 1919. Ministers have made it clear that we are not in favour of changing the law, because that would be incompatible with the maintenance of public safety and law and order. However, I recognise the strength of feeling that exists within the police. Indeed, I attended the Scottish Police Federation conference yesterday and listened carefully to the speech of the chairman, Norrie Flowers. I indicated in my speech that there are lessons to be learned from the past six months and that we intend to learn those lessons in a spirit of partnership. This is a sensitive time in the conciliation process that is part of the pay negotiations and it would not be helpful for me to go into details about what representations are being made by the Executive to the Home Secretary.
The latter part of that non-answer suggests, "So much for freedom of information." We are 24 hours into the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, but apparently such information is all still confidential. [Interruption.] My point is that all the information is in the Deputy First Minister's domain—he does not need a bill to disclose what he knows already.
There is much that I could say in response to that question, but how about this for starters? In his speech, Norrie Flowers, the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, said:
Four years?
Order. Let us hear the answer.
It is worth remembering that the previous record high number of police occurred under a Labour Government, not under a Conservative Government. It is also worth remembering that police strength today stands at 15,251 officers, which is a record; that the crime rate is at an historically low level; that overall crime is at its second-lowest level in the past 20 years; that the police detection rate is at a post-war record; and that we are making serious inroads into tackling many different types of crime. Housebreaking is down 8 per cent, car theft is down 12 per cent and fraud is down 18 per cent. The most recent crime survey showed that fear of all types of crime had dropped in comparison with the levels in the mid-1990s, when the Tories were in power.
Sustainable Development
To ask the First Minister what priority the Scottish Executive attaches to sustainable development. (S1F-1853)
Sustainable development is a central principle in the work of the Scottish Executive. We have made closing the opportunity gap and sustainable development the two main themes of the spending review 2002, which will ensure that every spending programme considers how its actions can contribute to those issues. We will confirm our commitment in a statement on sustainable development to be published on 30 April, which will be called "Meeting the Needs".
The fact that we can expect a statement on sustainable development next week is excellent news, which I hope all parties in the Parliament will welcome. Will the Deputy First Minister assure me that the statement will not be just a statement, but will be about action? How will he ensure that sustainability is central to the full range of the Scottish Executive's work?
I reiterate that sustainable development will permeate the whole of the spending review 2002. Spending programmes that are put forward will be measured with reference to sustainable development. Although it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the release of the detail of next week's publication, Mr Smith and the Parliament can take it that challenging targets on sustainable development will cross the whole range of the Scottish Executive's activities.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I understand that questions at First Minister's question time are meant to be topical. Sustainable development is hardly the chat of the Rover's Return. Will you provide clarification on the issue?
Such a point could be raised at the end of question time. The member is in danger of questioning my selection, which is a very grave offence.
I am sure that the Deputy First Minister is grateful for Mr Monteith's intervention, which will give him time to recover from Mr Smith's rapier supplementary.
That question was fairly unsustainable, but I am sure that if there is any issue that relates to sustainability, Wendy Alexander or Lewis Macdonald will look into it.
I will pursue Mr Swinney's questioning further. Does the Executive feel that the planting of GM crops in our environment is sustainable? In particular, what is the Executive's definition of risk? GM crops will pollinate wild relatives. There is evidence for that from a European survey that has been peer reviewed—it will be among the evidence that Mr Swinney has. There are wild relatives of GM oil-seed rape in the area. What is the Executive's definition of risk in that respect?
I understand that ACRE took into account the points and references that Mr Harper made in his question. Ministers have acted on that advice. As I indicated, the advice was that there is no credible evidence to change the view that there is no threat to human health or to the environment. In those circumstances, ministers had to act legally and permit the field trials.
Youth Disorder
To ask the First Minister what progress is being made in addressing any problems of youth disorder in local communities. (S1F-1854)
I call Kenny Gibson.
Not yet. I apologise—it must have been the association between youth and disorder that brought Mr Gibson's name to mind. The minister will go first.
I do not think that youth crime quite covers Mr Gibson's age range.
The Deputy First Minister might be aware that, on many occasions in the past, I have raised my concerns about the serious issue of youth disorder. He might not be aware of a meeting that was held in my constituency on Tuesday, when at least 600 people squeezed into a school hall, with well over 100 left outside, to express their concern, anger and frustration at the level of harassment, intimidation and disorder in their community.
Order.
—and adjust a system to tackle those problems rigorously—
No. Order. That is enough.
I am sorry. I do not see why I should get held up on time on a very serious issue given the length of time that has been given to other members.
No.
I will finish on this point—and will give priority to ensuring that the—
Order. The member must resume her seat or I will ask her to leave the chamber. [Interruption.] Order. If a member does that again, they will be the first person to be asked to leave the chamber. That is not allowed.
I acknowledge the strength of feeling with which Johann Lamont has expressed her constituents' concerns. I recall her raising the issue in the chamber on a number of occasions. Indeed, I am aware of the meeting that took place earlier this week, because she had an informal meeting with my deputy minister, Richard Simpson, who reported to me. I give her the undertaking that Cathy Jamieson of the education department, who shares responsibility for youth justice, and I will be willing to meet her to discuss those matters.
On 16 January at the Chartered Institute of Housing conference, the Minister for Social Justice said:
I am not quite sure where Kenny Gibson has been. I endorse the comments of the Minister for Social Justice. In fact, since that time we have published Scotland's action programme to reduce youth crime, which contains a series of proposals. Mr Gibson may not have noticed this, but I am almost certain that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill includes a provision for interim anti-social behaviour orders, so we are taking action. It will be for the Parliament to decide whether it passes the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. I sincerely hope that it does.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, in order to reduce youth crime effectively, it is necessary not just to have more police in local communities, but for them to be more visible in local communities? Is he aware that the increase in the number of police officers in the parliamentary police unit in the vicinity of the Parliament has reduced the overall level of crime in the city centre of Edinburgh? Does not that fact speak strongly for itself?
I made it clear in my answer to Kenny Gibson that visibility is important. Indeed, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary will publish a report on that issue in the summer. I look forward to that report, because I hope that it will identify a number of areas in which progress can be made. The report is important because it has taken account of the public's views in many parts of Scotland, which will inform our policies in the months and years ahead.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Do you believe that it is now required that we should ask the Procedures Committee to examine equal time for people who are asking questions? I make that point seriously. Could the Procedures Committee also examine when a question is a question and when it becomes a speech, and when a question is acceptable or unacceptable?
On the question of times, that is a matter for the Procedures Committee to examine at any time. On your second point, standing orders are clear that members are required to ask brief supplementary questions. When members add speech material to questions, that simply cuts out others who are waiting to ask questions. That is why I get cross about it.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You threatened to put Johann Lamont out of the chamber this afternoon because she ran over her time. When bogus points of order are made, you never threaten to throw anyone out. Can you please explain the difference?
No. The point was that Ms Lamont insisted on repeating things, which were adding to the question. She was making a speech and I asked her to resume—[Interruption.] The Official Report will show tomorrow that I asked her to resume her seat. The mistake that she made was not resuming her seat when she was told to.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In this chamber it is perceived by women that you distinguish between men and women. You took Duncan Hamilton and allowed him to make a speech, yet you did not allow Johann Lamont to do the same.
That is absolutely untrue. I will read the Official Report tomorrow, as I always do.
On a point of order.
On a point of order.
Is it a real point of order this time, Mr Gallie?
Yes, it is a genuine point of order. Further to Duncan McNeil's point of order, the time in question time is not, in the main, taken by back-bench questioners; it tends to be taken by the ministerial responses. Is that an issue that should be referred to the Procedures Committee?
Members are welcome to refer anything to the Procedures Committee. In the chair, I have no control over the length of ministerial answers. There is nothing in the standing orders that helps me on that. Is your point of order on the same issue, Mr Sheridan?
It is on the same topic. As you will be aware, Presiding Officer, Johann Lamont and I do not always agree politically, but I did not hear you tell her to sit down. There is an issue with the sound during question time, which must be addressed, because sometimes when members are speaking we cannot hear clearly what is being suggested from the chair. That matter should be examined.
That is perfectly possible. I will look at that.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Is it on the same issue?
Yes. Presiding Officer, did you say that you have no control over the format of questions?
I referred to the length of ministerial answers.
Do not standing orders say that the Presiding Officer must treat all members as equals? However, the leaders of the two main Opposition parties regularly take up more than half First Minister's question time, and you allow that. Do not members sometimes ask supplementary questions that are too long and are irrelevant to the initial question?
On the member's second point, I have some sympathy. I try to keep members to the questions in the business bulletin. On the member's first point, the convention has grown up—it is only a convention—that the leaders of the Opposition parties have a bit of extra time at question time. I thought that that had been generally accepted.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
The following debate is heavily oversubscribed, but I will have to take more points of order.
I can scarcely believe that the following debate is heavily oversubscribed, but never mind.
It is.
Will the Presiding Officer be good enough to explain how that convention can be changed, because the view from the back benches is that it could do with a bit of changing?
I think that members could first discuss the issue in their party groups. If there is a view, it would be interesting to hear it.
Previous
Question Time