Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 28, 2009

Official Report 675KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1729)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

As members know, we had a substantial discussion in the budget process about the importance of apprenticeships and of delivering the most ambitious apprenticeship guarantee in the United Kingdom. After the apprenticeships summit, which we agreed on, and discussions with major employers with the capacity to take up apprentices, we have decided on a policy of offering a one-off payment of £2,000 to enable apprentices in Scotland who discontinue their employment to move into gainful training. I know that Labour members will welcome that.

Last week, I asked the First Minister twice whether the gunman who strolled out of Castle Huntly prison 10 days ago should have been in an open prison in the first place, and the First Minister twice failed to answer my question. In light of the statement by his Cabinet Secretary for Justice yesterday, will the First Minister now answer that question? Should a dangerous convicted gunman with a history of violence and escapes have been in an open prison barely three years into a 10-year sentence?

I heard the Cabinet Secretary for Justice make the point yesterday that if the processes had been followed correctly and the information flow had been appropriate, the likelihood is that the decision that was made would not have been made. I do not know where Iain Gray was yesterday. I watched the Cabinet Secretary for Justice making his statement, and he answered that question and every other question comprehensively.

I was in the Parliament listening to Mr MacAskill making his statement, which—like the First Minister's response last week and his response today—simply reeked of complacency. Yesterday, Mr MacAskill told us that he had contacted the Scottish Prison Service last Thursday to ask it to review the circumstances of Brian Martin's transfer to an open prison. I wonder whether he did that before or after I raised the matter at First Minister's question time. Whatever, Mr Martin had absconded three days earlier, on the Monday. What was Mr MacAskill doing for three days with a dangerous and violent criminal on the run? Why did it take three days for him to get round to asking what had gone wrong?

I am getting groundhog day from Iain Gray. The prisoner concerned has been recaptured, as other prisoners from the open estate have been recaptured. [Interruption.]

Order.

One of the reasons why that can happen is the comprehensive increase in the number of police officers in Scotland. The other reason is that absconds from the open estate are running at only a fifth of the level that they were at under the Labour Party and an eighth of the level that they were at under the Conservative party. Mistakes happen—that is obvious. That was why Professor Alec Spencer was appointed to conduct an inquiry. However, it is clear that the system is functioning five times better than it was under the Labour-Liberal alliance.

As usual, the First Minister is barking—up the wrong tree. The issue is not the number of absconds; it is what went wrong in a particular case. It is groundhog day because of an answer that was read out three times last week and once again this week. Yesterday, Mr MacAskill said:

"The SPS has apologised to me for what appears to have been a failure in its information-sharing processes."—[Official Report, 27 May 2009; c 17836.]

The SPS has apologised to Mr MacAskill. Why is he not apologising to the Scottish public, who naively expect their Cabinet Secretary for Justice to keep violent criminals in jail? What about the First Minister? He was going to resign if we did not stop being nasty to Mr MacAskill. He would huff and puff and blow the house down. We have heard it all before—instead of throwing his toys out of the pram, why does he not throw his Cabinet Secretary for Justice out of his Cabinet?

If we had an election in Scotland, it is the Labour Party that would be blown away. [Interruption.]

Order.

I have listened carefully to Iain Gray's performance on the issue. This morning, on "Good Morning Scotland"—I have the transcript here—the question was put:

"It's an interesting thing responsibility though isn't it, because in 2006/07, there were 79 absconds from Scottish prisons—2008/09 there's just been 16. Where was responsibility then, Mr Gray?"

And the answer?

"Well that's a very welcome improvement".

Indeed it is a welcome improvement—under this Cabinet Secretary for Justice. It compares well with the abysmal record of the Labour and Liberal parties. [Applause.]

Order. Iain Gray has a final question.

It is a very welcome improvement. I welcomed it last week—the first time that the First Minister said it, I welcomed it; the second time that he read it out, I welcomed it; I did that the third time that he read it out. I welcome it again today.

This is about the complacency of Mr MacAskill's response, the full measure of which we saw when he called the accidental release of a violent prisoner

"a glitch in the system".

What about the other glitches? Missing the knife crime summit: was that a glitch? Failure to control knife sales: was that a glitch? Hundreds of cases being delayed in our High Courts: is that another glitch? Ditching community courts: was that a glitch, too? Telling Scotland's criminals that prison is "a skoosh": was that a glitch in the system?

Look at the headlines: "MacAskill ‘on the run'", "MacAskill under fire", "Sack him now." This is not a "glitch", "gaffe", "bungle" or "fiasco". When will the First Minister admit that his Cabinet Secretary for Justice is the glitch in the justice system and do something about it?

Like all the best action replays, we get it from Iain Gray in slow motion. I heard him try to remember the reality of what happened under Cathy Jamieson's stewardship as Minister for Justice—[Interruption.]

Order.

He was asked this morning about the high rate of absconds under the Labour-Liberal alliance. This is what he said in answer:

"I don't actually remember that happening under Cathy Jamieson stewardship at the Justice Department."

Let me try to jog his memory. In February 2007, the Evening Telegraph and Post reported:

"A murderer serving a life sentence and a man convicted of attempted murder are among the inmates who have been on the run from open prisons in Tayside for more than a year … They include a 51-year-old who was serving a life sentence, with a minimum of nine years, for murder. He escaped in May 2005."

Tragically, that man was not recaptured before he murdered again.

Iain Gray attempts to attack the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, whose record is five times better than that of the previous Minister for Justice. Why did he not try to allocate individual responsibility to the Labour Minister for Justice who presided over not only a record rate of increases, but a systematic tragedy? [Applause.]

Order. Iain Gray: one final, brief question.

I heard "Good Morning Scotland"—I was there, so I know what was said. I have checked how Cathy Jamieson dealt with those issues, particularly the issue of Reliance and prison absconding. I will tell the chamber how she responded: she came to the chamber and apologised. I am willing to listen to the First Minister apologise now.

Apologise.

Order.

We are talking not about the Reliance fiasco, but about absconds from the open estate—the ones that Iain Gray could not remember under Cathy Jamieson's tenure. It is important that Government accepts responsibility and we do—[Interruption.]

Order. First Minister—

It is even more important that he should—[Interruption.]

First Minister, I know that you could not hear me, but I must stop you.

When I ask for order in the chamber, I expect to get it. I allow as much latitude as possible for members to support or decry what is being said, but when I ask for order, I expect to get it.

Thank you for your guidance, Presiding Officer.

I am sure that every Labour member will want to hear how Labour's record in Government was five times worse than the record now. Governments have to accept responsibility, but the individual amnesia from Iain Gray on the reality of the rate of absconds under the Labour-Liberal Administration and the collective amnesia from the entire Labour group on the subject is no substitute for the effective action of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice—action that has brought about dramatic improvement in the open estate.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1730)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

Yesterday, Mr MacAskill did indeed have to come before the Parliament, his tail between his legs, and make embarrassing admissions about the absconding prisoner Brian Martin. However, let me just get this straight: that dangerous criminal, with a history of violent behaviour, who had absconded before, was given a 10-year sentence, then sent to an open prison after three years. Presumably, he will get out after five years, and he has now been given four months for being on the run again. Just how much of the 10 years will that man serve and just how much of the four months will he spend inside?

I remind Annabel Goldie of two things. The open estate was introduced by a Conservative Government, and I think that there is general feeling across the chamber that, while substantial faults have been found and, of course, have been ironed out, the open estate system should continue in the Scottish Prison Service. By definition, the open estate contains serious prisoners; it does not, by and large, contain people who are on short-term sentences. The open estate is there to provide rehabilitation for people and test them in conditions of near release—that is what it was devised for.

Mr McLetchie made a sedentary reference to automatic early release. I remind him that that, too, was introduced by a Conservative Government and, of course, that it is about to be abolished through new legislation under the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

Enough of the First Minister's fantasy, particularly on early release—here are the facts. Time and again the Conservatives in the Parliament have brought forward a vote to abolish automatic early release, only to be blocked every time by—yes—the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party. Let us not have any more hypocritical nonsense from the First Minister.

We have had another dangerous criminal on the run and we have a Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the ropes, saying that prison is "a skoosh" and that that appalling incident was "a glitch". I have one word for Mr MacAskill: disaster. However, whatever Mr MacAskill's failings, the buck stops at Bute house. The First Minister must grasp the nettle, find his political bottle and show some mettle. Is he prepared to be a leader? Will he announce a Cabinet reshuffle and will he put an end to the SNP's soft-touch Scotland?

I welcome Annabel Goldie's solid support for the record number of police officers patrolling our communities and keeping Scotland safe from harm. In her spirited defence of automatic early release in Scotland, Annabel Goldie forgot to confirm that it was, indeed, a Conservative Government that introduced it in the first place—I suppose that it is better that one sinner repenteth, and all that. However, I have no doubt that we will get solid support from the Conservative party for the proposals in current legislation to abolish automatic early release in Scotland.

I have already pointed out at some length to Iain Gray, with his individual amnesia, the serious situation that prevailed under the previous Administration regarding the rate of absconding, which was five times the level of last year. However, that was as nothing compared with the level under the Conservative party, when it was no less than eight times the level of last year. With regard to Annabel Goldie, her soundbites and her aim to find a speck of sawdust in the eye of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, all I would say is: let us remember the planks of wood when the Conservatives were in government.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet. (S3F-1731)

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

Climate change threatens our way of life in this country and it threatens the lives of tens of millions of people around the world. Why has Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, which represents 1.5 million people in environment, development and faith groups and in trade unions, said this week that the SNP's Climate Change (Scotland) Bill is "desperately unambitious"?

I suppose that climate change activists will—rightly—pressurise this Government and every Government around the world to obtain the best possible climate change legislation. The view of the organisation that Tavish Scott mentioned is hardly unanimous among climate change activists. For example, Richard Dixon, who is WWF Scotland's director, said:

"This is still the best piece of climate change legislation proposed anywhere in the world."

Given that endorsement from WWF Scotland, I am sure that we will have the enthusiastic support of Tavish Scott and his colleagues as the bill proceeds through the Parliament.

The slight difficulty with that line is that Richard Dixon of WWF Scotland said this week that the bill was "unambitious". I am not sure from which bit of history Mr Salmond quotes.

Stop Climate Chaos Scotland says that the Government's immediate targets are no more ambitious than those of the United Kingdom. Mr Salmond said that he wanted to lead the world, but now he cannot even keep up with London. The SNP promised 3 per cent annual carbon reductions in its manifesto, but it voted against those reductions on Tuesday. Will the First Minister listen to the voices of those who criticise the bill and to the people who wrote his manifesto by changing his bill to adopt the scientifically credible reduction that he promised before the election or, as usual, does the spin matter rather more than the action?

If we look again at what Richard Dixon said—

"This is still the best piece of climate change legislation proposed anywhere in the world"—

that rather indicates that whatever the individual criticisms, which people often legitimately make about all legislation and which are part of the consultation process, the view is that the bill is the most ambitious that is proposed anywhere in the world. [Interruption.] I offer another quotation. Professor Jan Bebbington, who is the Sustainable Development Commission's vice-chair in Scotland, said on the bill's publication:

"This is a landmark day for Scotland. The delivery of this Bill now gives Scotland the foundation on which we can build a low carbon future."

I say with great respect to Tavish Scott and his enthusiastic support for alternative and renewable energies, which I know that we will have when they come forward from Shetland—I see him pausing to think about that proposal—that I suspect that Professor Jan Bebbington knows slightly more about the legislation and probably a little more about the issue than the Liberal Democrats' leader does.

I will take a constituency question from Frank McAveety.

I thank the Presiding Officer for taking my urgent constituency question and I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing for contacting me yesterday evening about the swine flu outbreak that affects constituents of mine.

Will the First Minister reassure my constituents in the Govanhill area that all measures are being taken to ensure that children who attend the local primary school—Annette Street primary school—are not at risk from swine flu, following the recent revelation that a family with children at that school has been affected by an outbreak? Will all measures be taken to contact parents to ensure that their children are safe in the next few weeks?

Yes—I can give that reassurance. Public health officials have been at the school this morning. As the constituency member knows, the risk assessment indicated that because the children who are probable cases were not symptomatic when they were at school, the school did not need to be closed. Public health officials have been in place this morning to give parents the guidance that they need.

Throughout the outbreak, there has been huge co-operation and understanding. Public health officials are fully versed in the natural anxieties that parents feel. I hope that the constituency member is satisfied that everything that can be done to provide such reassurance is being done.

I will take a further constituency question from Trish Godman.

During our debate this morning on supporting Scottish businesses, I was informed that Hewlett-Packard is to relocate manufacturing work from Erskine in my constituency to the Czech Republic, with the resulting loss of 843 jobs. The company made a profit of £5.2 billion in 2008, which was due in part to the hard work of men and women in Erskine in my constituency. Will the First Minister assure me that everything will be done to help redeployment, where possible, and that, if training for other jobs is needed, the Government will ensure that it is available to all my constituents on request?

I can give Trish Godman the assurance that she seeks. Hewlett-Packard will make a detailed announcement to its employees later today, so I do not want to go into too much detail. However, the constituency member is right to understand that, after a review of its European operations, Hewlett-Packard has decided to close its manufacturing operations in Scotland and Germany and to relocate to a lower-cost, outsourced site in the Czech Republic. A substantial number of Hewlett-Packard's operations—supply chain management, customer support and business group headquarters—will remain in Scotland.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth spoke to the UK vice-president of Hewlett-Packard this morning and will be on site in Erskine tomorrow. The constituency member can be assured that everything will be done, through the partnership action for continuing employment network, to help people to find alternative employment. Discussions will take place with Hewlett-Packard on the protection and enhancement of the headquarter functions that will remain in Erskine. I understand that the transfer is due to start next year. That will give us substantial time that will be valuably used both by the PACE network and for discussions with the company.

---

National Health Service Consultants (Distinction Awards)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government plans to review the system of distinction awards for NHS consultants. (S3F-1733)

A group, led by the chief medical officer, has been set up to review the distinction awards and the discretionary points scheme for NHS consultants. The findings of the group, together with its recommendations, will be submitted to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing shortly.

I look forward to learning about the group's findings. In the meantime, does the First Minister agree that a scheme that costs the Scottish national health service nearly £30 million a year, benefits only one group of health workers, rewards half of all consultants approaching retirement with an extra sum of up to £74,768 a year and discriminates against consultants in Cinderella specialties such as old age medicine and against women urgently needs radical reform?

The scheme costs £26 million. To put that in context, it should be said that it is 0.245 per cent of the total budget for health and community care. We must also consider the issue of competition for consultancies, not just around Scotland but from elsewhere in the UK. However, a review was needed, has been carried out and is now complete. Its recommendations will be submitted within the next two weeks to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, who will inform Parliament of them.

---

Financial Inclusion

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to support financial inclusion. (S3F-1736)

We are providing local government with record levels of funding of more than £23 billion between 2008 and 2010. Financial inclusion, in particular, can be tackled using the £435 million fairer Scotland fund. Specifically, we have provided Citizens Advice Scotland with an additional £1.1 million to increase the availability of face-to-face advice on debt, welfare rights, housing and employment issues, through the citizens advice bureaux network.

There is some dubiety about the size of the fairer Scotland fund. I am sure that the First Minister will wish to acknowledge the ground-breaking progress—caused by a happy combination of political will and substantial guaranteed resources—that took place under the Labour-led Executive in supporting and developing the credit union movement across Scotland. Given the critical role of credit unions now in tackling debt and protecting communities from loan sharks, why has the First Minister chosen this time to cut guaranteed funding to them from £2.7 million to £250,000? What action will he take to match his rhetoric on financial inclusion with real money, to offer real support and protection in our local communities, through credit unions?

Johann Lamont would not want to give the wrong impression on the matter. The funding to credit unions is not limited to the £250,000 that she mentioned; it also comes from the £42 million that is available for the wider social economy. The Scottish Government has worked with the Green party to produce and introduce that fund. Patrick Harvie said of the process:

"I'm delighted to have been able to work with the Scottish Government to help develop the Third Sector Credit Union Fund. Credit unions have the good Scottish values of co-operation and social enterprise at their heart, and their work significantly strengthens the communities they operate in."

I know that Johann Lamont would not want to give the impression that funding has been reduced when credit unions and other vital social enterprises have access to record funding under the SNP Government.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the continuing stalemate on the future of the Nigg yard, which includes one of the finest graving docks in Europe. In terms of financial inclusion, at its height the yard employed 5,000 people but, due to the intransigence of one landowner, all attempts to bring it back into full use are being stymied. What is the Government doing to bring back the Nigg yard into full use? How will the First Minister ensure that Nigg is able to bid for a large and proper share of the future fabrication work offered by onshore and offshore renewables projects?

I saw some quizzical looks from the Presiding Officer, but I congratulate Jamie Stone on the ingenuity with which he asked his question.

The Government is looking at deep-water facilities around Scotland. Jamie Stone will have noticed—as, I am sure, will Labour members—the good news in Methil, Arnish and Machrihanish. We believe that there is a substantial future in construction for deep-water facilities in Scotland, such as those at Nigg. We will do our utmost to remove any obstacles to bring that yard and that magnificent site back into operation.

---

Scotland's Colleges (Recession)

To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with Scotland's Colleges about the recession. (S3F-1738)

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning last met Chris Travis, the chief executive of Scotland's Colleges and Linda McTavish, the convener of the principals convention, on Wednesday 20 May. The meeting was to discuss the United Kingdom budget consequentials and the current demand for college places.

I am sure that the First Minister is aware that it is expected that there will be an uplift of the order of 40,000 in the number of applications for college places during the coming year. That reflects the number of people who will be looking for new training and training opportunities. How does the First Minister feel about the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council's recommendation to colleges that they give priority to school leavers in the current circumstances and that they restrict the number of short courses that they offer in order to fund the places that will be required?

A range of initiatives is coming through to help Scottish colleges to play their full role in fighting the recession in Scotland and to meet the unprecedented and rising demand for places. As the member knows, £7 million has been allocated over two years to help colleges to respond quickly and flexibly and to provide support for the partnership action for continuing employment initiative. For example, South Lanarkshire College has established an onsite presence at Freescale, in East Kilbride, engaging with more than 200 employees.

I cannot go further in making specific announcements today, but the member should be assured that the Government recognises the key role of our colleges in providing training, help and support not just to fight the recession, but to build the skills that are essential to ensure that this country can recover strongly and forcibly for the future.

In England, there has been an expansion of 54,000 in the number of college places. If the First Minster is not able today to commit to using the £12 million in consequentials from the Westminster budget to increase the number of college places in Scotland, when can we expect that decision to be made? Colleges will need to start planning for any future expansion.

Claire Baker can take it from the fact that meetings are taking place between the cabinet secretary and key representatives of the colleges that such matters are very much under discussion for decision. She mentions consequentials. The Labour Party likes to argue for increased funding—that is fair enough. I would like increased public spending in Scotland across a range of issues, including Scotland's colleges. That makes it all the more disappointing that we have not heard a cheep of dissent from Labour members at the £500 million cuts in funding that are planned by the Labour Party over the next year.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—