Plenary, 04 Oct 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, October 4, 2007

Official Report 756KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

General Questions

---

Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 (SI 1999/1126)

To ask the Scottish Executive what negotiations it has had with Her Majesty's Government regarding the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order, which came into effect in 2000. (S3O-831)

The issue is important for Scotland and Scotland's fishing industry. We will consider raising it with the United Kingdom Government in the context of our discussions on the forthcoming marine legislation.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the removal of 6,000 square miles of maritime territory from Scotland—approximately 5 per cent of Scotland's total territorial waters—shortly before the Parliament came into being remains an outrage and demonstrates that Westminster is more often the beneficiary of so-called union dividends at Scotland's expense? Will he advise us what plans the Government has to make a legal challenge to the order to secure Scotland's vital strategic and economic interests?

I certainly agree with many of Christine Grahame's sentiments, as does the Scottish Government. She will recall that, back in 1999 when the issue was huge—which it remains, of course—the SNP in opposition quoted Dr Iain Scobbie, the senior lecturer in international law at the University of Glasgow who argued that the lines should have been drawn as requested by the Scottish fishing industry, not the UK Government of the time. I have no reason to believe that the legal position has changed since then. The waters were part of Scotland pre-1999 and, as far as the Scottish Government is concerned, they should be Scottish waters post-1999 as well. That is why there was such outrage at the time, and we are determined to raise the issue with the UK Government when an appropriate opportunity arises.

---

Police (Additional Officers)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it has made in developing its strategy for the recruitment of additional police officers and on what date it expects the recruitment of such officers to commence. (S3O-817)

This Government is committed to delivering additional policing capacity—the equivalent of 1,000 officers over the parliamentary session—and ensuring that additional capacity is directed at providing visible and identifiable policing in Scotland's communities. Delivering that commitment will require a co-ordinated, carefully planned and innovative approach that will involve not only central Government but police authorities and chief constables. It will consist of a mixture of additional recruitment, improved retention and a freeing up of existing officers' time through tackling inefficiencies and exploiting new technology. We are currently developing those plans and intend to make an announcement in the context of the outcome of the spending review.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice's response to the question gets weaker every time it is asked. I must caution him. Is he aware that the answer to the question "How long is the 1,000 police officer recruitment string?" is that it is too long? Does he recall his answer to my colleague Gavin Brown on 14 June—112 long days ago—when the cabinet secretary said almost exactly the same thing:

"We are developing our plans to deliver the commitment, and we intend to publish them in due course"?—[Official Report, 14 June 2007; c 785.]

When is "in due course"? Any commercial organisation that has identified a demand for additional people sets the criteria for recruitment and gets on with it. Can the cabinet secretary persuade the Parliament that the delay can be justified any longer?

I will happily reply to Jackson Carlaw's caution. I am surprised that he goes on about deficiencies in specifications, given that the last time that he asked the question, he commented:

"the SNP committed to providing 1,000 more police officers, while we committed to an additional 1,500. It would be interesting to know how the SNP arrived at its requirement figure; come to that, it would be interesting to know how we arrived at ours."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 421-422.]

Jackson Carlaw requires specifics from the Executive, but his party apparently did the work on the back of a fag packet.

Jackson Carlaw has a commitment: we will recruit new officers. However, this is equally about retaining existing officers, far too many of whom leave with skills that are still required in our communities. Most important of all, this is about current and new bobbies using their time appropriately and visibly in our communities, rather than being hidebound by the paperwork and bureaucracy that the previous Executive imposed on them.

The Scottish National Party promised 1,000 extra officers on the streets of Scotland. Most ordinary people would understand that to mean 1,000 additional officers, with the number rising from 16,232 to 17,232. The cabinet secretary now seems to be saying something different—which he should clarify today—and the new policy seems to be about additional officers being freed from certain duties. Can we expect the SNP to stick to this latest new policy and new promise? Given the knowledge that the number of retirements will double in 2009, how confident is the cabinet secretary about achieving his policy by 2011?

I reiterate what I said in response to Mr Carlaw: the Government is committed to delivering additional policing capacity by the equivalent of 1,000 officers in the lifetime of this parliamentary session, ensuring—given what Ms McNeill said—that that additional capacity is directed at providing visible, identifiable policing in Scotland's communities. We will ensure that those 1,000 officers—the bobbies whom we recruit, those whom we retain and those whom we use effectively—will be visible in our communities, making Scotland a safer and stronger community.

Page 58 of the SNP manifesto is clear:

"That's why we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more police".

The Deputy First Minister said this morning that there will be 1,000 more officers at the end of the session than there are today. Is that the case—yes or no?

There will be 1,000 more officers in our communities providing the visible policing that communities need and want. We have faith in the bobbies whom we will recruit and in the excellent service that will continue to be provided by those whom we will retain. We will ensure that they will be freed up to do an excellent job in our communities without being overburdened by the paperwork that was the responsibility of the Labour part of the previous Executive and for which Labour's junior partnership colleagues, the Liberal Democrats, are equally culpable.

---

Environmental Justice

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it supports communities suffering environmental injustices that affect their health and well-being and what action it is taking to support such communities. (S3O-820)

It is a fact that the environment can impact on health and well-being. The Scottish Government supports communities directly through the environmental action fund. We are also progressing the strategic framework on environment and health, which aims to deliver evidence-based interventions to improve and protect physical and mental health and well-being where environment is a contributory factor.

The minister will be aware that one of the most important tools of environmental justice is the ability of communities to access local health information. For the past four years, Green MSPs have been pressing a test case to gain access to childhood leukaemia figures. The information was refused by the national health service, but the decision was overruled by the Scottish Information Commissioner, whose ruling was upheld by the Scottish courts, which ordered the release of the information. Sadly, the NHS is appealing to the House of Lords rather than abiding by the ruling of the Scottish courts and the Information Commissioner. The NHS's defence is patient confidentiality, although that argument has been exposed as baseless.

Will the minister intervene? Can she intervene? Will she confirm whether she supports the Scottish Information Commissioner, the Scottish courts and Scotland's poorest communities, who suffer most from environmental injustice?

I thank Robin Harper very much for that question. He has corresponded with me on the issue, and I am fully aware of the background to it. As I have said to Mr Harper before, I have considerable sympathy with the points that he makes. I hope that we can find a way forward on the issue.

As Mr Harper knows, the issue is not about an attempt to conceal information; it is about whether the information that he wants may be published in the precise format in which he wants it without revealing individuals' identities. I am aware of the view of the Scottish Information Commissioner on the matter, but NHS National Services Scotland believes that it cannot publish the information in the precise format that has been requested without compromising patient confidentiality. In those circumstances, NHS National Services Scotland is entitled, under the freedom of information rules, to test its position in the courts.

As I have said previously, and as I will repeat to Mr Harper now, I would like to find a way of allowing Robin Harper to access the information that he wants without compromising patient confidentiality. I repeat my previous invitation to him to discuss the matter with NHS National Services Scotland in the interests of finding a way forward that satisfies his objectives while ensuring that patient confidentiality is not compromised.

Is the minister aware of the environmental injustice in my constituency? A section of Dunbeth public park that is currently used as playing fields by schools and the public will be used by private finance initiative contractors to build a floodlit sports pitch, in spite of significant public opposition. The development will involve the cordoning off of a substantial area of a beautiful Victorian park for what will effectively be restricted public usage that will be subject to cost. That will undoubtedly affect health and well-being. Does she share my concerns that the objectives of the contractors have taken precedence over the needs and concerns of the community, and will she undertake to look into the matter?

I of course undertake to look closely at the matter. Although I do not know the details of the local circumstances that Elaine Smith describes, I am sure that my colleague the Minister for Environment will also be happy to discuss them with her in more detail.

I take this opportunity to outline the action that the Scottish Government is taking to help communities, starting with the £2 million environmental action fund. The Minister for Environment recently announced 10 community projects that will benefit from the fund. The strategic framework on environment and health is also extremely important, and its next stage is in development. The purpose of the framework is to go beyond tackling environmental hazards and to focus more on promoting the environment, particularly an environment that can contribute to good health. I hope that Elaine Smith will recognise the work that is being done. I can give her an undertaking that I am happy to discuss the specific local circumstances with her further.

On another tack, does the minister agree that one way of addressing environmental injustice lies in addressing health and the lack of fresh local food in areas of urban deprivation through providing more opportunities for the provision of allotment space? Will she encourage local authorities to review the allocation of allotment space in their local plans, so that provision is made for local community groups to grow fruit and vegetables? We all know the enormous importance of a decent diet to our health and well-being.

I have a huge amount of sympathy with the points that Nanette Milne makes. She might be aware that my colleague Richard Lochhead is developing a food policy. I certainly hope that Nanette Milne's points will be fully considered in that policy development.

I understand that the SNP intends to merge the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, which are of course important bodies for the protection of local communities. Indeed, the First Minister himself cheerily reassured us that the merger was okay, because the bodies were moving to become a new rural service. Will the minister confirm whether that is the case? If so, can she explain how such a rural service will serve the needs of my constituents, who, as she is aware, live not in a rural area but in a city that has suffered disproportionately from environmental injustices and which deserves to be protected from further attacks on its people's health and well-being?

As Johann Lamont is well aware, the Government is in the process of developing a single rural delivery service, an approach that has been warmly welcomed by the very agencies that she mentions in her question. I am sure that my colleague Richard Lochhead will be more than happy to discuss the specific points that Johann Lamont has made as he continues to develop his extremely positive policy.

---

HM Treasury

To ask the Scottish Executive on what subjects it has made representations to HM Treasury since May 2007. (S3O-812)

Derek Brownlee will not be surprised to hear that the Scottish Government holds a number of on-going discussions with HM Treasury on a number of subjects.

The answer is not a surprise, although its vagueness is. I hope that one of those subjects is the planning gain supplement, which was introduced by Labour at Westminster with very little consideration for the impact on the devolved Administrations—and in the face of the opposition of the previous Scottish Executive, at least judging by its submission to the consultation on the matter.

Will the minister commit to going back to whoever happens to be running the Treasury in a month's time with a view to getting some additional consideration of how the planning gain supplement will interact with section 75 arrangements in Scotland?

Today, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, is meeting with the Treasury, standing up for Scotland and trying to ensure that we get the best possible deal out of the financial settlement.

I assure the member that John Swinney has written to HM Treasury in the strongest possible terms about the planning gain supplement. We believe that, in practical terms, an option that is based solely on local charging mechanisms will be more efficient and more suited to meeting our objectives for sustainable economic growth.

---

Antisocial Behaviour (Rural Areas)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour among young people in rural towns and villages. (S3O-814)

The Scottish Government is committed to tackling antisocial behaviour wherever it occurs. We fund community safety partnerships to deliver a range of services to protect their communities from unacceptable behaviour and to provide more choices and chances for young people to engage in positive rather than negative behaviour.

An important part of tackling antisocial behaviour is a visible police presence, which is an ambition shared by both the Conservative party and the Scottish National Party Government. Is the minister able to tell me how many extra police officers will be on the streets of Tayside by 2011?

As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has already indicated to Parliament, we are fully committed to implementing our pledge to continue and increase the visible police presence in Scotland. This Government is absolutely determined to promote community safety and to tackle antisocial behaviour. However, we wish to give a new emphasis in this policy area by trying to provide to young people in the poorest parts of Scotland the choices and chances that have been enjoyed in the richest parts of this country. Our emphasis should be on providing such chances to our young people and on promoting good behaviour, not just tackling bad behaviour.

---

Proposed Disabled Persons Parking (Scotland) Bill

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will support the disabled persons parking (Scotland) bill. (S3O-857)

I understand that a final bill will be introduced in Parliament later this year. We will reach a view at that stage.

The minister will be aware of the very real problem caused to disabled people by the abuse of disabled parking bays; indeed, that much is clear from the Government's own research, which was published just last week. It is equally clear that the current legislation is not fit for purpose. Will the minister tell the chamber why the Scottish Government has declared its support for the proposed sunbed licensing bill, which has yet to be published, and the tartan register, which is not even before the chamber—both worthy proposals, I am sure—but remains silent on improving the lives of disabled people in Scotland?

I think that I can say without ambiguity that we certainly support what Ms Baillie's proposed bill seeks to achieve. However, we need to see whether the material in the bill delivers.

In the meantime, we are engaged on this subject. I have written to Councillor Pat Watters of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to remind him of local authority powers to promote orders to protect the parking spaces in question, and I await his reply. We are as committed as Ms Baillie is to supporting people with blue badges and ensuring that they are able to park wherever they require.

Question 7 is withdrawn.

---

Foot-and-mouth Disease

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to minimise the impact on farmers and crofters of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Surrey. (S3O-843)

We have been able continuously to relax movement restrictions where veterinary risk assessment has shown it safe to do so. We have also very strongly pressed our case with the United Kingdom Government and obtained on 2 October a relaxation of drivers' hours regulations to address the backlog of livestock movements. We have also lobbied strongly for the resumption of exports of meat from Scotland following the export ban. On 3 October, we achieved that aim, which will take effect from 12 October.

Moreover, we are preparing a sheep welfare scheme to address the problem of light lambs that are still on the hills and are facing a shortage of feed and the onset of inclement weather and for which there is no viable market. The Scottish Government continues to work with stakeholders and other organisations to provide appropriate support to farmers.

Does the minister agree that, even though it comes with restrictions, the European Union's decision to lift the export ban—and I acknowledge the Government's role in that respect—is extremely important in creating confidence in the light lamb and store lamb markets? Is he able to clarify whether any particular measures will be introduced to help with exports to the Faroes, which is a matter on which I have corresponded with him? Moreover, given the problems that I appreciate he knows about but which are currently very real, is he able to tell us how quickly the sheep welfare scheme might be introduced?

We are putting in place arrangements for the sheep welfare scheme, which, all things being equal, should be up and running at some point early next week. I am sure that there is cross-party support on that important issue. We are also continuing to press the UK Government to fund the scheme, given its moral and political responsibility in that regard.

The member raised concerns about exports from the islands. My officials and I are well aware of those concerns—I will get back to the member on that. The expert group of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health will meet once again next week. Following today's productive meeting with a range of stakeholders in the Parliament, we are aware of several measures with which we want to proceed.