Scottish Parliament, 6 November 2013

267 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Asylum Seekers

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it meets the health needs of asylum seekers. (S4O-02532)

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Microphone, please.

I ask the minister to respond.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We have always been clear that—

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer, I do not mean to be contrary—I appreciate, of course, that it is not a point of order—but the microphones in the chamber are not working. Can that be rectified?

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Yes. It is lit, but it is not working.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Take two, Presiding Officer. I heard his question.

We have always been clear that asylum seekers should be welcomed, supported and integrated into Scotland’s communities from day 1 and have access to health services. National health service boards are required to ensure access to health services to meet individuals’ needs.

Over the past year we have been working in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Refugee Council to develop a strategy for asylum seekers and refugee integration. The strategy, which will be launched next month, recognises the importance of good health and access to quality healthcare to the successful integration of refugees and asylum seekers. The strategy will increase understanding of their rights and how to access them.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will raise the specific case of one my constituents who is an asylum seeker. I know that Mr Neil, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, is aware of the case.

My constituent was taken off the kidney transplant list when he was unsuccessful in his asylum case—that automatically triggered removal from the list, based on English NHS guidelines not Scottish ones—although legal moves are pending. My constituent has still not been put back on the NHS transplant list and the case is being peer reviewed by Lothian NHS Board. Is the minister open-minded to reviewing the treatment of asylum seekers in the Scottish NHS to ensure that Scottish NHS boards are properly following the requirement to treat asylum seekers the same as any other Scot resident in our nation?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

There is already guidance available for NHS boards that sets out very clearly that those who are in Scotland as asylum seekers should receive the same healthcare provision as any other resident of Scotland. Clearly, on the issue that the member raises, which he has previously raised with the cabinet secretary, clinical decisions have to be made about whether someone should be put on the transplant list. That is about not only the clinical benefit that they would get from a transplant but whether they are able to meet the treatment requirements following the transplant.

If the member has specific information that he thinks would help in addressing his constituent’s concerns, I or, I have no doubt, the cabinet secretary will be more than happy to explore the matter with him, to ensure that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde properly addresses those concerns.

Food Banks

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has had with the Minister for Housing and Welfare on food bank provision. (S4O-02533)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The cabinet secretary and I hold regular meetings with our ministerial colleagues, including the Minister for Housing and Welfare, on a range of issues that affect the health and wellbeing of the Scottish people. Our discussions focus on the most vulnerable groups in our society and how we can help to tackle issues around health inequalities.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I recently visited Dunfermline Foodbank, and this week I heard about increasing demand at the Levenmouth Foodbank Community Support Project. Although benefit changes and delays are a key driver of demand, volunteers report that people with mental health issues are presenting for support. The report on health inequalities that the Scottish Government published last week showed that there is a bigger impact on mental wellbeing in areas of deprivation, which is where inequalities are increasing.

The Scottish Government has rolled back some of the anti-poverty programmes that were in place. What plans does the minister have to target resources more effectively to address health inequalities?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I will correct the member, because we have not rolled back any of our anti-poverty strategies. If anything, we have increased the range of anti-poverty strategies in order to try to tackle the issue. It is important that we keep the issue in context.

Inequality, particularly health inequality, is very much rooted in social inequality. Income inequality and lack of opportunity and educational attainment all contribute to inequality in society. We need to take concerted action to address those issues effectively.

The member said that she had visited a food bank in her region. I have done the same in my constituency. The number 1 reason for individuals having to make use of a food bank in Falkirk, in my constituency, is delays in welfare payments due to the welfare system reforms that are taking place. I believe that the most effective way in which we can deal with such issues is to ensure that this Parliament has the powers to manage the welfare system here in Scotland so that we can tackle the root causes of people being forced to use food banks, rather than use food banks to mitigate the impact of the welfare system being ripped apart by the member’s colleagues in the better together campaign.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I disagree with the minister’s simplistic understanding of the need for food banks. There is a much more complicated situation, which we need to better understand. Will the minister give an undertaking that the Government will commission independent research into why there is an increasing demand for food banks in order to ensure that we understand whether the situation is more complicated than his representation of it?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am sure that it is not lost on the member that there is a direct correlation between the increasing number of food banks in the country and the welfare changes that his Government at Westminster is introducing, which are causing real difficulties and crisis for many individuals throughout the country. I am sure that he is no different from me and other members, who, on a weekly basis, see constituents at their surgeries who are having difficulties with the changes to the welfare system and experiencing delays in payments being made to them, which is forcing them to get food from food banks.

Food poverty is on the increase in this country, not because of the inaction of the Scottish Government but because of the action of the UK Government and the direct impact that the introduction of welfare changes is having on people. I hope that the member will acknowledge that, although we will do everything that we can within our powers, in order to deal with the situation effectively we need full control of our welfare system so that we can effect the change that is more appropriate for the people of Scotland.

Commonwealth Games (Accessibility)

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what opportunities there are for people with mobility issues to participate in viewing events during the Commonwealth games at Hampden. (S4O-02535)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Glasgow 2014 organising committee is working to ensure that accessible seating and associated facilities are available for people with mobility issues at Commonwealth games events. To that end, it is currently conducting accessibility audits at all competition venues to understand existing provision and identify areas for improvement.

Accessibility improvements have already been made at Hampden. A new upgraded lift has been installed, along with four new wheelchair-accessible WCs and additional facilities for users with reduced mobility. For the games, a temporary athletics track will be installed and the wheelchair viewing spaces will be temporarily relocated.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

The minister will be aware that there will be much welcomed new viewing areas for fans with mobility issues during the Commonwealth games. She may also be aware that that is only a temporary measure. Many disabled fans who follow Scotland at the national stadium currently have a choice of only trackside or restricted view seating. Does the minister agree with me and the Scottish Disabled Supporters Association that the new seating should be retained by Hampden Park? Will she meet me and members of the SDSA about that issue?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The organising committee has been working with all competition venues to try to ensure that solutions can be made on a permanent legacy basis wherever possible, although it is recognised that temporary solutions will sometimes be necessary.

However, I recognise that the Scottish Disabled Supporters Association is doing excellent work to ensure that issues for its members are being raised and considered. While the specific issues raised by the member are the responsibility of Hampden Park Ltd, I would be happy to meet the member and the SDSA to discuss that further.

Health Visitors

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what role it considers health visitors have in making Scotland the best place in which to grow up. (S4O-02536)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Health visitors play a vital role in contributing to the health and wellbeing of children, young people and families through their focus on early intervention, prevention and provision of universal services. With other members of the multi-agency team, health visitors help to ensure that the wellbeing of every child is at the heart of our public services and that families get the support that they need when they need it.

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Government has committed to fully fund local authorities to deliver the named person provisions in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. Should the bill be passed, will the Government show equal commitment to children aged zero to five by fully funding health boards to train, recruit and employ health visitors to fulfil the named person role?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The financial considerations around the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill are in the financial memorandum that sits alongside the bill. The memorandum has already been set out by the Minister for Children and Young People, Aileen Campbell, who is responsible for the bill.

Health visitors clearly have an important role to play for those aged zero to five, as part of the named person provisions in the bill. Since 2007, we have increased the number of health visitors in Scotland by some 13 per cent, along with a 77 per cent increase in the number of public health nurses.

We intend to work closely with our boards to ensure that they have the capacity in place to allow health visitors, who will be responsible as named individuals, to carry out that role effectively. We expect our boards to put plans in place to ensure that they do that in time for the bill coming into force.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that, ideally, health visitors should be placed within general practice and primary care as part of the team so that they are closely involved with families in a relatively small locality of their health board area?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

It is important to see health visitors as part of that multidisciplinary team, including the general practitioner, the public health nurses and other health professionals who are engaged in working with children, young people and families.

It is important that we continue to improve the education provision for health visitors. NHS Education for Scotland is already undertaking work to consider how we can do that to allow health visitors to continue to progress in their careers.

Health visitors are a key part of the multidisciplinary team, working with general practitioners, social workers and teachers to ensure that we meet the needs of children and young people effectively.

Victoria Hospital A and E

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what recent measures NHS Fife has put in place to improve the accident and emergency department at Victoria hospital. (S4O-02537)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

NHS Fife appointed additional consultants to the emergency department in 2012. That enabled the introduction of a fast-track process for the care of patients presenting to the emergency department with minor injuries. It also enabled extended consultant weekend working—there is now consultant weekend working in the department from 9 am to 11 pm each day.

Further consultant posts have now been approved for the emergency department, which will further enable increased senior decision making across the 24-hour period.

The redirection policy that was introduced in May 2013 has resulted in the redirection of some patients who do not require the specific services that the emergency department provides to a more appropriate care setting, such as a general practice. That allows faster access to treatment for patients who require the services that only accident and emergency can provide.

Additional senior nurses have been recruited to the emergency department to provide additional resource to manage the patient journey and to provide clinical leadership to the multidisciplinary team across the 24-hour period.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

What steps does the Scottish Government intend to take to ensure that the extra resources given to the accident and emergency department at Victoria hospital have a positive impact on helping to reduce waiting times and, in the long term, offer a higher and more effective level of care to the public?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The national unscheduled care team has established a robust performance framework to monitor NHS boards’ delivery of improved and sustained performance across the whole system, including in relation to A and E waiting times. As part of accessing an additional £50 million, boards submitted detailed local unscheduled care action plans, which set out their approaches, described how new service provision and personnel would positively impact on service quality and performance and offered an improvement timeline that showed in detail by month the progress that would be delivered.

Since September, the unscheduled care team has established weekly and monthly performance protocols for reviewing the implementation of local action plans and the delivery of improved performance. A clear and explicit intervention and support system is available and will be deployed when agreed performance and/or quality is not demonstrated, to ensure that boards deliver effectively, according to their plans and the national plan.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary will know that I recently wrote to him about concerns over Victoria hospital’s patient care. I thank him for the reply that I received. Given the concerns about A and E and the missed targets in Fife, is he confident that NHS Fife is in a robust position for the winter months and the challenges that are ahead?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am confident that NHS Fife is in a much better position today than before. We are in constant contact with the board to ensure that, week by week, it is meeting not just A and E turnaround times but other performance targets, such as the treatment time guarantee.

NHS Provision (Visitors and Temporary Migrants)

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what the annual cost is of providing national health services for visitors and temporary migrants to Scotland. (S4O-02538)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Figures on the cost of overseas visitors and temporary migrants accessing NHS healthcare in Scotland are not held centrally. Overseas visitors are managed effectively in Scotland through a combination of regulations and Scottish Government guidance for NHS boards.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister will be aware that an independent report for the Department of Health estimated that the total cost of visitors and temporary migrants accessing NHS services in England could be about £2 billion per annum. If we extrapolate that on the normal basis, the cost to Scotland could be as much as £200 million a year. Will the minister immediately inquire into the cost in Scotland and how we might recover that money for the NHS?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

It is important to recognise the report that was produced on the NHS in England, but the number of migrants and so on in England is different from that in Scotland. We view migrants as an important part of the Scottish economy. They are provided with healthcare in the same way as other individuals in Scotland are.

We have robust mechanisms in place for those who are not from Scotland and who require to pay for NHS treatment. That system is managed effectively by our boards.

The figure that Alex Johnstone referred to is probably pretty excessive. There is no evidence whatever of such a level of expenditure in Scotland and no indication from any of our boards of difficulties that have resulted from the number of migrants who use healthcare services.

It is important to treat people equally and fairly while they are in Scotland. We should not try to use our healthcare system to manage immigration and migration.

Community Pharmacies

Jean Urquhart (Independent, Highlands and Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its review of the regulatory framework that supports the community pharmacy applications process and the power that national health service boards are given in relation to dispensing general practitioner practices. (S4O-02539)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The review that I announced in September is making steady progress and is nearing completion of its first stage, which has involved identifying the full range of powers that are available in primary and secondary legislation and how the framework can be better constructed to deliver the best possible outcome for patients and NHS pharmaceutical care and primary medical services in rural communities.

As part of that process, officials have identified a range of important and complex issues that will be central to the review’s next stage, which will lead to amended regulations. I expect to announce shortly the next steps in taking that forward, including any consultation on the key issues that are identified.

Jean Urquhart (Independent, Highlands and Islands)

I know from previous exchanges in the chamber that the cabinet secretary recognises the impact on medical services in remote and island areas of the opening of community pharmacies. I continue to receive correspondence from North Uist and Benbecula about the proposal there. What further assurances can the cabinet secretary give those communities?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am very familiar with the situation in Uist and indeed in other parts of Scotland—in particular, in rural Stirlingshire. I explored the possibility of having a moratorium until my review was completed but I do not have the legal powers to impose a moratorium. If I had those legal powers, I would have used them.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the answer that he has already provided. As he is aware, I have taken a close interest in community pharmacies.

Is the cabinet secretary aware that new applications have been made to open pharmacies in Aberfoyle and Drymen and that therefore there is understandable local concern about the potential impact those applications will have on existing dispensing GP practices as well as on other pharmacy businesses operating in the area?

The cabinet secretary has made very clear the Government’s position with regard to a moratorium. Does he recognise the importance of going through the process as quickly as possible to ensure that any regulatory change that is required is brought before the Parliament at the earliest possible date?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I totally agree with Bruce Crawford. We are doing everything that we can to ensure that progress is speedy while, of course, adhering to overall rules and guidelines in terms of consultation.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that Andrew Walker, who was a lay member of the pharmacy practices committee in the Western Isles, was asked to step down from that role when it became public that he held it and when he committed to listen to the concerns of the community on the application that was in hand. Surely that flies in the face of transparency and of needing to consult and listen to the views of those affected by decisions that are taken on their behalf. Can the cabinet secretary perhaps advise the Western Isles NHS Board how it should proceed and give interim guidelines until he is in a position to come forward with a proper review?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am very much aware of the situation that Rhoda Grant describes. I need to be rather judicious in any comments that I make because of the potential implications, but I am keeping a close eye on the situation. If Western Isles NHS Board requires my guidance—if it asks for any guidance—I will be happy to provide it.

GP Casework

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the medical profession regarding the casework of general practitioners. (S4O-02540)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish ministers are fully committed to working with general practice professionals to ensure that the framework within which primary care is delivered is fit for purpose and responsive both to local circumstances and to patient need.

The Scottish Government is in regular dialogue with the Scottish general practitioners committee on those issues and on other important issues affecting patient care and service delivery. Freeing up GP time that is spent on bureaucracy to enable that time to be spent on patient care remains a priority for the Government in the development of a more Scottish contract, and it is something that we wish to explore with the SGPC at every opportunity.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. In relation to S4W-16841, I wrote to BMA Scotland questioning the impact on GPs of the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reforms. In the response that I received, BMA Scotland indicated that there is anecdotal evidence that the UK Government’s welfare reforms are increasing GPs’ workloads, as patients are very concerned and confused about health assessments that they are being forced to take.

Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that the welfare reforms from Westminster are having a damning and detrimental effect on the most vulnerable in society? Does he also agree with me that we need to continue to campaign against such reforms? Finally, does he agree that, with a yes vote next year, Scotland can have a welfare system that aids our people as compared with one that punishes those who are less well off and those who are disabled?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I agree with all Stuart McMillan’s points. The UK Government’s damaging cuts—which started under Labour and are being continued by the coalition Government—and challenges to the welfare system could reduce benefit expenditure in Scotland by more than £4.5 billion in the five years to 2015, impacting on some of the most vulnerable in our communities, including women, children and disabled people.

We are doing all that we can to mitigate the impacts of the cuts where possible. However, we can only do so much within our existing powers and strapped resources. The solution is for the Scottish Parliament to have full control over welfare so that it can put in place policies that benefit the people of Scotland. In the meantime, we continue to press the UK Government for fairer reform and to ensure that safeguards are in place for those who need them, while doing what we can to help those affected.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I know that the cabinet secretary is aware that many things impact on the workload and case load of GPs. However, I draw his attention to the current difficulties with waiting times in NHS Lanarkshire. Does he recognise and understand that those difficulties cause great frustration for GPs because of the backlog that they build up and their inability—as they see it—to get the best service for their patients?

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the current review by Health Improvement Scotland could examine the impact on GPs and consider healthcare for people in Lanarkshire holistically?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am very much aware of the issues to which Linda Fabiani rightly draws attention. I have a meeting later today with the chair of NHS Lanarkshire in which I will highlight those issues, and I will work with the board to try to address the pressures on GP surgeries and the wider issues that are being addressed in the review by HIS.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that GPs who refer cancer patients to the Aberdeen royal infirmary for radiotherapy are concerned at the lack of specialist oncology services and staff at that hospital? Will he acknowledge that patients who travel from Shetland are now being referred to other hospitals throughout Scotland? Will he discuss with NHS Grampian how best to avoid that happening in the very trying circumstances in which patients are finding themselves? It is of great concern to GPs locally in cases in which there is a considerable need for the patient to be treated as quickly as possible and in particular at Aberdeen royal infirmary.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Tavish Scott raises a legitimate question. I am aware of the particular challenges in oncology in Grampian, specifically in colorectal cancer. We are working with the clinicians and the boards to address those issues and, where necessary, we will continue to offer alternative sites for treatment for patients from Shetland and Orkney.

Of course, the main issue is to address the challenges, which are not confined to that part of the country but are part of a general shortage of certain oncology skills throughout the UK.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Yesterday I welcomed the cabinet secretary’s announcement that there is to be a new GP contract and a review of access to GP practices. Will he respond today to my party’s request to convene all-party talks on those two very important issues?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am always delighted to meet members of other parties, particularly when they have something positive to contribute. I look forward to Neil Findlay’s positive contribution as a new departure from his previous contributions.

Stroke Care

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

10. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making on developing a new stroke care action plan. (S4O-02541)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Our “Better heart disease and stroke care action plan” is backed by more than £1 million of Scottish Government funding each year. It is aimed at ensuring that people with stroke are able to access effective, safe and person-centred care as quickly as possible. The priorities that the action plan sets out are monitored and updated annually and approved by the national advisory committee on stroke.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for his answer, but does he agree that more must be done to ensure that stroke survivors have adequate access to psychological services, including clinical psychology services in stroke units and psychological support in the community as set out in the original action plan? To what extent is that support available in the community? How many stroke units provide clinical psychology services?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I know that there has been an issue with access to psychological therapies for patients who have experienced a stroke. As part of our wider mental health strategy, we have increased the availability of psychological therapies. That is why there has been an increase in the number of psychologists and in other therapies being made available in the NHS.

We want to continue to increase capacity, and we have introduced a HEAT—health improvement, efficiency and governance, access and treatment—target for access to psychological therapies to ensure that boards are more consistent in making those services available. The HEAT target will come into force at the end of 2014 and it will ensure that all boards put in place the necessary measures to make psychologists and other talking therapies available in their area, including for patients who suffer stroke.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Can the minister say what measures are being taken to encourage more blood pressure testing in the workplace and in the wider community, including in community pharmacies, as a preventative measure for strokes?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

There is no doubt that having one’s blood pressure checked regularly is an important element in helping to reduce the likelihood of experiencing a stroke. I am aware that in January 2014 the Stroke Association will run a “Know your blood pressure” campaign, which we are more than happy to support and which will be taken into community pharmacies in order to encourage people to get their blood pressure taken.

Alongside that, the general practitioner contract continues to contain provisions to ensure that GPs take the blood pressure of the patients who are at greatest risk of heart disease, stroke and hypertension.

Within the workplace, through the Scottish centre for healthy working lives we are taking forward work to assist employers and workplaces in general to help to promote good health and wellbeing among the workforce. The centre will support companies and individuals on issues such as providing blood pressure checks for the workforce on a regular basis.

Dumfries and Galloway Health Services (Seasonal Pressure)

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

11. To ask the Scottish Government what plans are in place to address seasonal pressures on health services in Dumfries and Galloway. (S4O-02542)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

All health boards have plans in place to ensure the quality and continuity of local health services during the winter period. NHS Dumfries and Galloway’s winter plan was endorsed at its October health board meeting and is available on its website. Such plans are informed by national guidance such as “National Unscheduled Care Programme: Preparing for Winter 2013-14”, which was issued to all health boards on 27 September. The plans are supported by additional Scottish Government investment, such as the £50 million unscheduled care action plan that was announced on 25 February to improve accident and emergency performance over the next three years.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

According to the annual review of NHS Dumfries and Galloway, wards in Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary were closed on five separate occasions in 2012-13 due to outbreaks of norovirus. Just last month, two wards had to be closed due to another outbreak. Does the health secretary intend to issue further guidance on the prevention both of the introduction of viral infections to hospitals from the community and of their spread within hospitals? Does he recommend restrictions on visitor numbers and visiting times when such infections are circulating within the wider community?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Already whenever there is an outbreak of such a virus, limitations are placed on visitors and on the availability of particular wards. As part of our unscheduled care plan, every board has been asked to prepare contingencies in the event of something like norovirus breaking out and wards having to be closed, given the knock-on impact on patients, visitors and staff. Some particular challenges that we faced due to the norovirus outbreak last year were that, first, it started earlier than usual and, secondly, as well as the impact on wards and patients, quite a number of staff went off sick after contracting the virus. We are saying clearly to all health boards that they should have in place contingency plans for wards, bed availability, staffing and all other aspects of dealing with an outbreak of a virus such as norovirus, so that if there is an outbreak, the contingency plan can be implemented immediately.

Prescription Charges (Abolition)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

12. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the abolition of prescription charges will have over this coming winter. (S4O-02543)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The abolition of prescription charges has removed a barrier to good health for many people across Scotland, particularly those on low incomes or those with long-term conditions. Taking the prescriptions that they need, without the worry of cost, will help those people to keep well over the winter months.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The United Kingdom shadow health secretary recently told Holyrood magazine that he wanted to see health policies that can be consistent across England, Scotland and Wales. He said:

“Wouldn’t that be a good thing, pulling in the same direction ...?”

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, given that Labour at Westminster has shown no enthusiasm for free prescriptions and given that nothing is off the table for Johann Lamont’s cuts commission, in the circumstance that Labour were in government Andy Burnham’s formula would threaten free prescriptions in Scotland?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I remind the member that when Andy Burnham was the health minister in England, he introduced the £20 billion of cuts in the health service down south that have been taken forward by the coalition Government. Of course, he was also very enthusiastic about privatisation of certain aspects of the health service. Certainly, the last thing that the people of Scotland need is the reimposition of prescription charges at £7.85 for a single prescription or £104 for an annual prepayment certificate. I look forward to the report of the Labour Party in Scotland’s cuts commission and to seeing whether it will reimpose those prescription charges.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was under the impression that question time is about the responsibilities of the Government and not of anyone else. I wonder whether you could rule on that, Presiding Officer.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary consider removing his ban on advertising free prescriptions for minor ailments to those who are most in need in our society, such as single mothers on benefits, who could actually get a cough bottle for their children? They really need prescriptions, but his Government currently has a ban on advertising the service to those in need.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

That is a total misrepresentation of the situation, as we have come to expect from Jenny Marra.

Aberdeen Maternity Hospital Inspection

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

14. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has received assurances from NHS Grampian that it will act swiftly on the Healthcare Environment Inspectorate’s recommendations following its inspection of Aberdeen maternity hospital. (S4O-02545)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

NHS Grampian has already put in place an improvement action plan addressing the issues that were raised by the recent very unsatisfactory HEI inspection at Aberdeen maternity hospital. The chief executive has been required to take personal responsibility for delivery of the plan and the board will be held to account against that. The HEI will undertake further announced and unannounced inspections to ensure that there is robust evidence of progress against the actions that have been identified.

NHS Grampian stated publicly in its media release of 30 October that all the issues that were raised in the report have been tackled as a matter of urgency and that all the requirements and recommendations are being addressed. It also stated that most of the actions have already been completed and that the remainder are at an advanced stage of implementation.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Constituents whom I represent in the north-east, including patients and parents of newborn babies, deserve to have confidence in the cleanliness of wards and the quality of care. Which agencies of the Scottish Government have been tasked with supporting NHS Grampian in improving its standards?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Last week, at the Scottish Government’s instruction, Health Protection Scotland visited Aberdeen maternity hospital to determine how the failures occurred, to co-ordinate support for NHS Grampian, to quickly rectify the problems that have been identified and to ensure that NHS Grampian puts in place systems so that those events are not repeated. Health Protection Scotland will co-ordinate support from other national agencies as necessary, including Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Health Facilities Scotland, NHS Education for Scotland and the Information Services Division.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Is it not the case that the need to upgrade maternity services at NHS Grampian has contributed to the problem? What action is the cabinet secretary taking to ensure that the health board has the resources and support that it needs to put in place the much-needed new maternity facilities at the hospital?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I make it absolutely clear that there would be no excuse for what the Healthcare Environment Inspectorate discovered in any hospital, no matter its age. As NHS Grampian has accepted, what was found at Aberdeen maternity hospital was certainly unacceptable. As the member knows, there is an issue about the capital programme for either upgrade or replacement of Aberdeen maternity hospital but, when we receive detailed proposals on that, they will be given due consideration. Of course, it would be easier to confirm that capital programme if our overall capital programme had not been cut by 26 per cent in the coming year.

Glasgow Airport Rail Link

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08173, in the name of James Kelly, on transport. We are extremely tight for time in today’s debates, so I ask members to stick to their allocated times. Mr Kelly, you have eight minutes.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party and to move the motion in my name.

This is an important debate because it is about the story of a scandal at the heart of the Scottish Government. It is not only about how £30 million of public money, including more than £8 million lost in land sales, was wasted, but about how the Scottish National Party Government does business. Let us not forget that the Government was too arrogant to come to the chamber and explain how £30 million was wasted on the cancelled Glasgow airport rail link project. Recently, the SNP was happy to spend two and a half hours on a debate looking forward to next year’s Ryder cup, but it did not want to make a statement on the millions of pounds of public money that has been lost. I am therefore delighted that we have the time this afternoon to hold the Government to account.

I get the clear impression of a Government that is out of touch and not in control of what is happening. George Adam seems to think that it is a laughing matter, but I can tell him that when millions of pounds of public money is lost or wasted by the Government it is no laughing matter.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Money has been saved.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

In answer to parliamentary questions last week, Keith Brown revealed that the land sales, which account for more than £8 million in lost funds, were processed by officials and there was no ministerial oversight of those transactions. It is a bit like what happens on a Saturday night, when the television newsreader tells viewers to look away when the football scores come up. I get the impression of millions of pounds swishing about in the transport budget and the minister looking away, out of his ministerial office.

There is a theme of incompetence in the way that the issue has been handled. We have heard from the Government that it had to sell the land because it was surplus to requirements. The reality is that, while one part of Transport Scotland was involved in selling the land, the other part was involved in an airport study group that was considering the possibility of a new GARL project. I have here the answer to a freedom of information request that shows that, in March, April and May this year, Transport Scotland was involved in discussions with a transport study group that was considering a new GARL project. At the same time, another branch of Transport Scotland was involved in the sale of the last piece of GARL land. Questions remain about that. Was it sheer incompetence on the part of the Government and Transport Scotland, or was it a show of political spite in killing off the GARL project? It is clear that Keith Brown is not in control of his department or his brief. The civil servants in Transport Scotland are pushing the policy context in different directions while Mr Brown sits in his ministerial office and twiddles his thumbs.

That theme of incompetence also runs into the SNP amendment, although the minister should be congratulated because he has achieved what engineers have failed to do—a U-turn on the railways. The SNP amendment describes the GARL project as “ill-conceived”. The SNP—or whoever drafted the amendment on its behalf—seems to have forgotten that it was a great supporter of the GARL project in 2006. Furthermore, when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, proposed the cancellation of the project, he did so on the basis of affordability, not desirability. The amendment is not competent, as it does not represent the SNP’s real position, and it should be withdrawn.

When we look at—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Just let me make my point.

When we look at the SNP benches, we do not see Sandra White, Nicola Sturgeon or any of those MSPs who, in 2006, were making enthusiastic speeches in favour of the Glasgow airport rail link.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the member is suggesting that the amendment is incompetent, presumably that is a direct challenge to the Presiding Officer, and he may wish to comment on that.

I did not have the privilege of being a member of Parliament at the time to which the member referred. However, I wonder who it was that conducted the initial land deals for GARL. Was the land not purchased by Strathclyde partnership for transport, which was chaired by a Labour councillor?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

All land deals were subject to due diligence when they were added to the Scottish Government’s balance sheet. That is why we need a full audit—to scrutinise the transactions carried out by the Scottish Government. Keith Brown has not carried out that scrutiny; he left the matter to his officials.

There is no doubt of the strong economic case for an airport rail link—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Will the member take an intervention?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I am sorry, but I am running out of time.

Next year, the people who arrive for the Commonwealth games will do so at an airport with no rail link. However, similar cities, such as Manchester, Newcastle, Paris, Milan and Copenhagen, all have airport rail links.

The situation is not just a scandal of money wasted but a failure of Government. The Government is too arrogant to come to the Parliament to explain the misuse of public money and too out of touch to know what is going on and it has a transport minister too incompetent to manage Transport Scotland. The Minister for Transport and Veterans is culpable and questions remain unanswered, which is why we need a full and independent audit. If we are to be a serious Parliament, we need answers to those questions and we need them immediately.

I move,

That the Parliament deplores that £29.91 million was spent prior to the cancellation of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link project, including an £8.17 million loss on land transactions; regrets that the land sales lacked transparency and accountability and were processed with no ministerial oversight, and demands a full and independent audit of all transactions associated with the project.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

It is more than four years since John Swinney came to Parliament to explain the reasons why we cancelled the GARL project. That was the right decision then and it is the right decision now, yet here we are again going over the same old ground with the Labour Party.

We knew that the costs associated with the cancellation would be around £30 million—we made that clear to Parliament at the time. However, we had to balance that cost against the £176 million in savings from not going ahead with the project. Let us not forget that the project was one in which the costs and risks had been massively underestimated by SPT, the original promoter.

I have just heard in the background a comment on the trams. I wonder what the people of Edinburgh would say if we could go back in time and not spend £776 million on that project.

Labour’s motion conveniently ignores the fact that, in the intervening four years, there has been a massive investment in the rail network that serves Glasgow, Paisley and Inverclyde. More than £660 million has been provided, with £230 million being spent on upgrades to the track and the stations and new platforms at Glasgow Central, and £430 million being committed over 16 years to the new fleet of class 380 electric trains, which are now running. That underlines our focus on delivery for the people of the west of Scotland, and our determination to prioritise the right investments and not to flinch from taking hard decisions to drop projects that simply do not deliver value.

I turn to the context in which the decision to cancel GARL was made. It was taken in a period when maintaining capital expenditure was vital to Scotland’s economy. Action was required to ensure that the impacts of the exceptional cuts that Westminster had imposed were kept to a minimum. We can all remember the words that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote as Labour departed from office in 2010:

“There is no money left.”

In those circumstances, we faced some extremely tough decisions. The cuts had started well before that, when Labour drove the economy into a ditch.

This Government was prepared to take the resulting difficult decisions. A contributing factor in our decision to cancel GARL was the fact that the costs associated with accommodation work within the campus of Glasgow Airport Ltd were escalating. Let us look at some of the facts. Work by Transport Scotland in the first half of 2009 identified a fourfold increase in the scope and capital compensation costs that we had inherited from SPT.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

In a second.

In January 2007, SPT estimated that work in the airport campus would cost £7.8 million. In May 2008, when the project was handed over from SPT to Transport Scotland, it was estimated that SPT work in the airport campus would cost £16 million. Following a thorough review of the potential scope of the project from January to July 2009, Transport Scotland estimated that work in the airport campus would cost £70 million.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

The minister mentioned Transport Scotland. Was he aware that, earlier this year, Transport Scotland participated in an airport study group that was looking at GARL at the same time as another branch of Transport Scotland was looking at selling off the final plot of land?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Yes, of course I was aware of that. Transport Scotland has said the same thing throughout the process, which is that we do not support a replacement GARL project. Nobody who was involved in that study group said that there should be a publicly funded GARL project. Two of the partners in that study have said that they are willing to look at a private sector-funded bid for GARL. They are pushing that, but the Government position has not changed throughout the process.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No, I will not.

The Government was not convinced that that level of public expenditure to compensate what was a private company could be justified at a time of significant cuts to public budgets and services. The cancellation saved £176 million of our hard-pressed capital budget. Parliament was kept informed of our intentions at the time, and has been kept informed of them ever since.

Labour’s accusation that the disposal of land lacked transparency is simply not true. We kept Parliament informed of the costs associated with the GARL cancellation and of our intention to dispose of the land throughout 2010. We could not have been clearer in doing that. We also made clear time after time that the land would be disposed of in accordance with the guidance and principles that are set out in the “Scottish Public Finance Manual”.

Some of the disarray in the Labour Party can be explained by the fact that its leader accused the First Minister of being too close to the issue. Johann Lamont insinuated that there was a connection between one of the people involved and the First Minister. Labour has gone from saying that the Government was far too close to the process to saying that we are not involved in it enough. That is despite the fact that we are following exactly the same procedures—those that are set out in the “Scottish Public Finance Manual”—that the previous Administration followed; I do not know whether Mr Kelly was a member of the previous Administration. We have done exactly what was done in the past, but the Labour Party has to find something to criticise. It does not want to be held to the same standards—

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No, I have already taken an intervention. I have less time than the member had.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No, I do not have enough time.

We made it clear time after time that the land would be disposed of in accordance with the “Scottish Public Finance Manual”. It sets out the requirements on how Scottish ministers and officials should go about ensuring propriety in land transactions. It is for officials to ensure that those guidelines are followed. The decision to declare the land surplus was taken only after an extensive trawl of other Government departments had been carried out to determine whether the land could be used for some other purpose.

Our record of investment in west of Scotland transport infrastructure speaks for itself. I have already mentioned some of the figures. On the rail network, we have continued to invest in works at Glasgow Central station and the rail corridor that serves Glasgow, Paisley, Ayrshire and Inverclyde at a cost of around £230 million, and £430 million has been invested in the introduction of the new class 380 trains, which are providing 9,000 additional seats and between 50 and 120 additional seats in the peak hours.

With regard to roads projects, members might remember the M74. There was a time when the Labour Party was committed to that and was going to see it through; once again, it did not, but we did at a cost of £692 million. [Interruption.] Perhaps some members think that the Labour Party completed the M74 project. Well, it did not—it was the SNP Government that completed it.

The M80 Stepps to Haggs project, which, incidentally, won a saltire award last week for the excellence of its engineering, was delivered on time and on budget at a cost of £320 million. As for the future, we are looking to the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement project, which will deliver longer trains and extended platforms at Glasgow Queen Street station and the electrification of the core Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk line.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I should also mention the £80 million electrification of the Cumbernauld line, which will introduce electrified services in advance of the Commonwealth games; the electrification of the Paisley canal line; the completion of the M8 motorway link; and the upgrading of nearly 7 miles of the existing A8 between Baillieston and Newhouse. Those investments will bring real benefits to Scotland; for example, the Paisley corridor improvements have delivered 61 operational jobs, whereas GARL promised 67. In total, the Paisley corridor improvements have delivered 45 per cent of the construction and operations jobs that were forecast for GARL and, of course, the new class 380 trains will provide an additional 9,000 seats.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Government is not afraid to make difficult decisions when it has to and, once we have made a decision, we move on from it. Our focus is to prioritise investment as an essential tool in enhancing productivity and delivering faster, more sustainable growth. The private sector is free to develop proposals to construct a rail link to Glasgow airport. It should not require support from the public purse for project development, but the fact is that no credible proposal has come forward in the intervening four years.

I move amendment S4M-08173.2, to leave out from “deplores” to end and insert:

“recognises the saving of £176 million from the cancellation of the ill-conceived Glasgow Airport Rail Link project; notes that the Parliament was informed of the decision to dispose of surplus land in March 2010 and accepts that this was carried out in accordance with the principles and guidance in the Scottish Public Finance Manual; welcomes the fact that the Scottish Government has made substantial investment, including the successful implementation of the £660 million of improvements to rail infrastructure, trains and services serving Glasgow, Paisley, Inverclyde and Ayrshire, and notes that all of this was achieved by the Scottish Government at a time of reductions in capital funding through prioritisation of the transport projects that will provide the greatest benefit to the people and economy of Scotland.”

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have no particular desire to become involved in this unsightly spat between the Labour Party and the SNP. However, as the opportunity to speak in the debate has come to me, I will use it.

Once upon a time, we could say that, although every major airport had a railway running past its perimeter fence, none of them had a rail link that passengers could use. In fact, the only one with an effective rail link is Prestwick and that probably came about only because the Secretary of State for Scotland at the time, George Younger, happened to have the airport slap bang in his constituency. It occasionally pays to elect the right member.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

If the member will excuse me, I will carry on and try not to get too involved.

This afternoon, the Labour Party has made a number of suggestions about some form of impropriety surrounding the cancellation of GARL and subsequent actions. If it has facts to support such accusations, I suggest that it brings them forward. However, as it stands, it appears that there are very few facts involved other than those that have been very simply and clearly laid out.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

Is Mr Johnstone, like me, curious to know whether Ms Lamont took up Mr John McGlynn’s invitation for a private meeting after certain allegations and whether, as a consequence, Mr McGlynn received a written apology? If so, does Mr Johnstone think that we should be told?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I would be very interested to have that information. As I have said, I would like to see all the facts laid out.

In looking at those facts, however, we should take one or two things into account. First, I would be a little reticent in accepting the SNP amendment’s description of the GARL project as “ill-conceived”. When it came forward, the scheme itself seemed very reasonable. Indeed, it seemed so reasonable that I think every party in the Parliament supported it. Who would not? It was a simple means of providing a valuable service. However, as the minister has pointed out, the estimated costs of work on the campus of the airport rose from £7.8 million to £16 million and then to £70 million. That should have set alarm bells ringing all over the place, especially with the Government. When the estimated costs of the whole project doubled and then doubled again, alarm bells should certainly have been ringing. When grave concerns emerged about not only the likely outcome but the reasons for the increase in prices, I believe that the Government did the right thing and called a halt to the project.

That said, that does not solve the problem that we still have: there is still no rail link to Glasgow airport. That is why I chose to lodge what many might describe as a naive little amendment, and one that I do not expect to survive to be voted on. We simply encourage the Scottish Government

“to explore options for the future provision of a low-cost rail link that will connect Glasgow Airport to the national rail network.”

I have already heard some encouragement from the Government. In spite of the fact that there is continuing reluctance by the transport minister to become involved in a Government-sponsored project, he has spoken about the possibility of achieving that through private sector investment. As a Conservative, I believe that private sector investment has a great deal to be said for it. First, it will control the project costs, and, secondly, it will deliver a link that does what it is supposed to do and nothing else. There will be no bells or whistles—the expensive options that we see in some of the other transport projects around.

We should not take from the debate the negative—the arguing that will go on between the SNP Government and the Labour Party Opposition and the petty political point scoring that is inevitable in such situations. Perhaps we may have turned around and be facing in a different direction at the end of the debate. We may have decided that, instead of arguing about the past, we can look forward to the future, when we might eventually be able to catch a train to Glasgow airport.

I move amendment S4M-08173.1, to leave out from “deplores” to end and insert:

“encourages the Scottish Government to explore options for the future provision of a low-cost rail link that will connect Glasgow Airport to the national rail network.”

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I will try to remain positive, as Mr Johnstone said that we should, but that is extremely difficult when we get the bile that we are getting from the Labour Party. It seems that there is the reality of the situation, and there is the paranoid planet of the Labour Party. Is the Labour Party really now trying to tell us that there is a strong economic case for the GARL project? The line was going to have 11 passengers per train. The costs were spiralling long before the SNP was the Administration. At one point, the cost was £140 million to £160 million. Tavish Scott then said that the cost was £170 million to £210 million. The costs constantly moved on. We are talking about 11 passengers per train and £3.1 million of subsidy every single year.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will the member give way?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I would love to do so but, unfortunately, there is not enough time in the debate. I have much to get through to stop some of the misinformation from Labour.

There were reports early on that Sinclair Knight Merz had said that only 5 to 6 per cent of Glasgow airport passengers would use GARL. Have members ever tried the bus from Glasgow airport into the centre of Glasgow? It is very efficient and quick, and it gets people there on time

As always, I encourage everyone to go to the nearest town, via Gilmour Street, and see what is happening in Paisley. Let us talk about the positive Paisley aspect of the story, which the minister mentioned. The work that was completed in February 2010 has delivered extra capacity to the Glasgow Paisley corridor and two additional peak-time services. The Scottish Government delivered 61 jobs; at its best, GARL was going to offer only 67 jobs. That is what Labour is arguing about. We have managed to move things forward and make things better for my constituency.

The Scottish Government has been up front about the costs of cancelling GARL. What exactly does the Labour Party want? The Scottish Government cannot be more transparent in everything that we are talking about. Again, I go back to the Labour Party’s paranoia. It is desperate to find something and cause trouble. It is pure political mischief. That is the problem, but the public are not buying that. They are not buying into that idea, because they can see the desperation in the Labour Party.

GARL was acquired by SPT, or Strathclyde partnership for transport—that organisation has changed its name so many times that we forget what its name is. Since its inception, it has been run by the Labour Party. We might ask why Labour-controlled SPT bought the land at such a high cost?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will the member give way?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to give way. If the Labour Party thought more of the debate, perhaps it should have used its whole time for it, instead of putting the debate into a small part of that time.

We have also had the pantomime, as has been said, of the Labour Party leader coming into the chamber and accusing the First Minister of all types of things. However, it was not only the First Minister who was accused but someone who was not here and could not represent himself: a local businessman who has offered jobs to people in my constituency.

We must ask ourselves what the Labour Party’s motivation is and what it is trying to achieve in this matter. It is not about the Labour Party trying to scrutinise the Government; it is about the Labour Party trying to create something that is not there. However, the information is available and the Labour Party should stop playing games and join the real world with the rest of us.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this Labour debate on the Glasgow airport rail link, because it will interest many constituents in Renfrewshire and West Scotland. We should have had a full ministerial statement several weeks ago on the issue; it is telling that Labour has had to bring the issue to Parliament today.

The minister spoke for several minutes on the Government’s actions on the Glasgow airport rail link and we heard many words, but the one word that we did not hear was “sorry”. We should have had a full apology from the minister today for three reasons: for cancelling an important infrastructure project for the region and the country; for costing an estimated 1,300 jobs in the Renfrewshire and Glasgow area; and for scandalously wasting our constituents’ taxes in the process.

We need transparency and we need accountability for this mess. It is completely unacceptable for ministers to hide behind officials, which is why Labour is calling for an independent audit into the land transactions, as James Kelly outlined earlier. The cancellation of the rail link has cost at least £30 million However, it is not the Government’s money, but our constituents’ money that has been wasted. The £30 million is a staggering figure. If the minister does not think so, that shows just how out of touch he is and how badly we need an independent audit.

I firmly believe that a rail link to Glasgow airport would have been beneficial to the whole country, with Scotland’s biggest city being linked by train to its airport. The SNP’s record on the issue means that we can get a direct train from Glasgow Central station to Manchester airport but not to Glasgow airport.

I note, as others have, that the minister’s amendment describes the Glasgow airport rail link as “ill-conceived”. He must disagree, in that case, with both John Swinney, who previously described the project as “desirable”, and Derek Mackay, who when he was leader of Renfrewshire Council acknowledged the “economic and transport benefits” of the rail link. The Government’s amendment also points to

“£660 million of improvements to rail infrastructure, trains and services serving Glasgow, Paisley, Inverclyde and Ayrshire”.

However, the reality is that weekday off-peak train services from Paisley Gilmour Street to Ayr have been halved, despite the minister’s continued denials. What sort of improvement is that? In addition, the investment in the Paisley corridor and the rolling stock that has been put on the route was done to facilitate the Glasgow airport rail link. The Government’s misrepresentations and failure to be open are not just reasons for an audit, but are a demonstration of a behaviour pattern.

We should not forget, as James Kelly said, the delayed publication of the Aecom study that the Government was part of, as the transport minister has confirmed, which recommended a rail link at the same time as the Government was selling off the land. Four years on from the cancellation of GARL, rather than seeing the benefits of a rail link, all that we are left with is an expensive mess and more questions than answers. This is not the SNP governing in Scotland’s interests. In relation to George Adam’s speech, what is even less forgivable are the actions of SNP MSPs who purport to stand up for Paisley and Renfrewshire and who supported the Glasgow airport rail link until Alex Salmond and John Swinney told them not to.

We all know that unemployment is too high and that we need jobs for young people and people who have been made redundant. In Paisley, we heard the announcement of 141 job losses last week. The SNP’s response to that is to sell off the land for the rail link cheap in a fire sale and, while they are at it, to slash college places for training and retraining opportunities.

It is about time that the SNP Government apologised for the mishandling of the Glasgow airport rail link and the loss of jobs to Renfrewshire, and time that we had an independent audit. It is also time that SNP MSPs who represent Renfrewshire started standing up for Renfrewshire.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

First, I think that we want to emphasise that rail is a good thing. Last night, we held an inaugural meeting of the proposed cross-party group on rail. I thank the 10 members who attended and others who want to be members of the group, but sent their apologies. I very much hope, despite some of the remarks in his speech, that I will be able to work with Neil Bibby, as co-convener of the group, to take it forward. The reality is that many, if not all, of us agree on the importance of rail and want to develop it, even though there can at any time be disagreements about the priorities.

Let us be realistic about what has been achieved. In my case, the Airdrie to Bathgate link allows trains to run from Helensburgh all the way to Edinburgh. I mention that not least because it links six stations in the east end of Glasgow right through to Edinburgh. It was delivered on time and on budget, and I went on the first train.

Of course it is desirable to have rail links to all airports. If I remember correctly from my SPT days, there was cross-party support for a rail link, as there was for a number of other rail and transport projects. One of Prestwick airport’s big advantages is its closeness to a railway station. When I go to visit other countries, I often use the train from the airport to the city centre, but not exclusively. The last time I flew to Rome, Paris, Athens and Brussels, I took buses to the city centres. I admit that I use the cheaper airlines, so that might be a factor.

We have to live in the real world, where there are limited finances, even in the good times. That means that we have to set priorities in the transport budget. We can ask, “What if we didn’t have the Edinburgh trams scheme?” or “What if we didn’t need to replace the Forth road bridge?”, but the reality is that we were forced to spend money on both projects.

We also have to set priorities between transport and other objectives. I am clear, and I think that most of my constituents in the east end of Glasgow are clear, that if we have to choose what to spend a limited amount of money on, housing has to be top of the list and transport must just accept its place. When setting priorities, we also have to remember that Glasgow airport, as has been pointed out, is exceptionally close to the city centre. The distance is some 8 miles and the journey takes only 20 to 25 minutes by taxi or bus. By comparison, Heathrow is 15 miles from the centre of London, and Gatwick is 29 miles.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Should the Forth road bridge have been built differently? Yes. Should the Edinburgh trams system have been handled differently? Yes. Should the Scottish Parliament building have been built for less? Yes. Should the land for GARL have not been bought in the first place? Perhaps the answer is yes. However, it is not unusual for the public sector to sell a piece of land and then to have to make a further decision. For example, in Glasgow City Council, it was not an unusual situation that land was sold and then had to be bought back at an inflated price because, for example, we wanted to put the Commonwealth games on the site.

The reality is that the people who authorised those projects considered that they were doing the right thing at the time, and in the case of SPT there was cross-party agreement that we wanted an airport rail link. We did not realise that the financial crisis was coming down the track towards us, so I think that it is somewhat unfair to go back now and criticise SPT or others who were involved in the decision.

The motion also calls for an audit. I wonder what is meant by that, because the auditors are there anyway and are doing their job. Is that a criticism of present or past auditors?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Are we saying that the auditors, who are professional people, are not independent? Is this an attack on the accounting and auditing professions?

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

The debate is not one that is designed to maintain the usual standard political posturing that can be witnessed in the chamber, but to address serious questions that remain about the cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link project, and to ensure that we have the clarity that taxpayers want about the cost of cancelling that vital infrastructure project.

We on the Labour benches want to know why £30 million has been spent on closing GARL and—especially—why almost £8 million has been lost on land transactions. Those questions are why we believe that there should be an independent audit of the handling of the land transactions to expose any lack of accountability and competence. If the minister and the Scottish Government maintain that all aspects of the cancellation of GARL were above board, they should have an audit and clear the air once and for all.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will Mary Fee give way?

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

No. I am sorry but as time is tight in this debate I am not minded to give way.

In 2009, when John Swinney axed GARL, I was a local councillor, so I know of the anger and dismay that constituents felt when they heard that the GARL project was to close. To this day, many of my constituents vent those feelings at surgeries and on the doorstep.

The more information that surfaces about the cancellation of GARL, the more local people remember that it was this Scottish Government that let them down. Not only did the local economy lose investment, but jobs that were promised to Renfrewshire were taken away at a time when they were desperately needed. For my constituents—constituents I share with George Adam and Derek Mackay—clarity is required and it should come from an independent audit.

Such was Derek Mackay and George Adam’s support for the project that the then council leader recognised the transport and economic benefits of the rail link and continued to support the project until his boss axed it. I am not sure which position Derek Mackay takes these days when standing up for Renfrewshire. The same goes for George Adam, who was also a councillor at the time and was also in full support of the project.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Will Mary Fee take an intervention?

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

No. I am sorry, but time is too tight to take an intervention.

When John Swinney made his announcement, he maintained that we could not afford the project. The viability of the project was never questioned and the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Act 2007 has never been repealed. With that in mind, and given the sale of the land at ludicrously lower prices than it was bought for, I urge the Scottish Government to listen to Scottish Labour and allow an independent audit to take place.

Looking at next week’s business, the Scottish Government has scheduled a debate entitled “Modernising Scotland’s Transport Infrastructure, Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century”. What a shame that the country’s largest airport experiences poor connectivity to all our rail networks. To ask visitors who land at Glasgow airport to take a bus to get a train to travel 9 miles hardly makes Scotland seem like a country that is meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

The GARL saga really embarrasses this Government. The information that led to this debate being sought was obtained only after sustained use of parliamentary protocols and questions in the media. A recent Audit Scotland report shows that the Government needs to improve its reporting to the public on major projects. The GARL affair best exemplifies the lack of accountability and transparency of this SNP Government.

Let us have an independent audit and find out why £30 million of taxpayers’ money was wasted on GARL.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am never one to intrude on personal grief, and I know that Labour Party members have had it hard over the past few weeks. However, I find it inconceivable, and even unbelievable, that poor Mr Kelly—for whom I have the greatest respect—should again have been sent out of the Labour trenches to do battle with such a poor armoury and infantry.

Last week, Mr Kelly’s—pro tem—senior officer, General Lamont, launched what she thought was a pre-emptive strike against our transport minister, which is a dangerous thing to do against a former Royal Marine who is a successful Scottish businessman. Her pre-emptive strike used dud ammunition, and she launched it in the full knowledge that Mark Griffin MSP, head of her transport division, had made a similar foray in the weeks before and had been given a straight and clear answer by the transport minister, who told him that the land that he was asking about had been purchased by Strathclyde partnership for transport—I will come to the sale in a minute—although it was subsequently bought by the Government.

General Lamont therefore knew the answer before she asked her question. It appears that as well as not talking to her support in the Falkirk outpost, she does not talk to her transport lieutenant. In the course of her attack, she fired innuendoes about the sale at a perfectly reasonable Scottish businessman. I echo Jackson Carlaw. Has she apologised to the general concerned in writing? She knew that her salvo at Government ministers would miss its target. She knew—or she should have known—that there were clear guidelines and restrictions on the valuation, purchase and sale of land, and the role of ministers in relation to those activities. She knew—or she should have known—that the rules of engagement on the sale of land are, and were, laid down in the “Scottish Public Finance Manual”, as per Westminster Treasury rules.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will Chic Brodie give way?

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

No. I do not have time.

General Lamont knew—or she should have known—that surplus land cannot be held speculatively by Governments and must be sold at an independently assessed market value.

We have a written answer on the involvement of Transport Scotland—which, apparently, did not know that. The written answer says:

“The sale prices were based upon a professional assessment by Transport Scotland’s property services consultants of the current market value of each plot.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 30 September 2013; S4W-17215.]

Not only that, but I have here a copy of the minutes of a meeting at Strathclyde partnership for transport, which say:

“After consideration, the Partnership approved the acquisition of Airlink Security Parks Ltd based on the terms outlined in the report”.

In the previous item, the SPT was talking about another property, its headquarters. What did it say about that? It said that

“the circumstances of both the property market”—

that is the value of property—

“and SPT’s Landlord had changed”.

Further on in the minutes, in item 10, we have, at item (e), under “Contract”,

“GARL—Branch line advance works—utility diversion. Advance ordering of gas pipes”

at the sum of £1.2 million. Who gained or lost from that presumption? The leader of the Opposition’s comments were not, as it was kindly put by the businessman who was affected, “regrettable in the extreme”. In fact, they were way wide of the mark and very badly misplaced.

It did not help that apparently there was no meaningful or sustainable business case for the whole project in the beginning. I have just been through the 2009 financial reports.

With respect to Mr Kelly and his fellow troops, I think that it is time for their general to return to the ranks.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I am sure that Mr Brodie will reflect on that speech and the tone in which it was delivered, and that he will consider whether it was the right speech to make.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I have said it before in the chamber and I will say it again—the decision to cancel the Glasgow airport rail link was wrong. It was a project that had the potential to stimulate the economy, create jobs and boost tourism. It would also have provided a public transport link to Glasgow airport that would have got cars off the road and made the journey easier. It was an infrastructure project not just for Glasgow and the west of Scotland but for the entire country. I remind Parliament that the delivery of an airport rail link was a commitment that was made in our bid for the Commonwealth games.

However, the Scottish Government decided to cancel the project without any real review or appraisal and without discussion with the other stakeholders. Much has been made about the escalation in costs in the transfer from SPT to Transport Scotland, but I also remind Parliament that when that official transfer took place, Transport Scotland carried out three months of due-diligence inquiries. What did it conclude? It concluded that no significant cost increases or overspends had been identified. In fact, a scant three months before the decision was made to cancel, the then Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change said that the project was on time and on target. How quickly they forget.

As we know, as the then Opposition, SNP members including the Deputy First Minister, Mr Swinney, Mr Stevenson and Sandra White, made strong arguments in favour of GARL. Ms White in particular bemoaned

“the lack of a direct rail link to Glasgow Airport”—[Official Report, 15 November 2000; c 62.]

and suggested that

“The benefits of the link are overwhelming”.—[Official Report, 29 November 2006; c 29844.]

However, once the cabinet secretary had decided to axe GARL, SNP members fell silent and their views about the necessity of the project were swiftly forgotten. Not one of its Glasgow members had the courage to speak out and say that it was the wrong decision.

Today, the audacity of the SNP has been revealed by no less a figure than the minister himself. In the amendment, he refers to GARL as “ill-conceived”. I confess that I was genuinely taken aback when I saw those words in the Business Bulletin because I can recollect no occasion in the past when an SNP minister has described GARL in that way. Indeed, John Swinney described the project as “desirable” when speaking about its cancellation, and the Scottish Government seemed at the time to be suggesting that it regretted having to make the decision to cancel GARL but had been forced into it by economic circumstances.

Parliament deserves an explanation from the minister as to the Scottish Government’s real opinion of GARL. Is it against the project in principle, as the minister seemed to suggest, and if so, why has it not said so before now? I remind the minister that, if a private GARL were to go ahead, it would still need rails to run on and those rails would have to cross land between Glasgow and its airport. What land does the minister think could now be used for a revised GARL project? Perhaps we will have a monorail, at the kind of cost that that would involve.

In coming to a close, Presiding Officer—I am conscious that your generosity goes only so far—I will mention another Glasgow rail line that has been the subject of much discussion. I speak, of course, of the Anniesland to Queen Street line in my constituency.

I sincerely welcome the Scottish Government’s recent commitment that that line will be electrified, but an idea of the timescale and a discussion of the implications for passengers would be welcome. The line is a vital link for people in my constituency, and they deserve to know what the Scottish Government’s plans are. I sincerely hope that the commitment to electrification of the Anniesland to Queen Street line lasts longer than the commitment to GARL.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

It was an American President who once said that, when he came into office, all the things that he had been saying were bad turned out to be much worse. That, perhaps, was the case with the GARL project.

The Labour Party motion rather unwisely invites Parliament to agree to an “audit of all transactions”. The word “transaction” is, of course, defined in “Webster’s Dictionary” as “a business deal”. It is not just about finance, so let us look at some of the transactions and delve deep into the Official Report of the Parliament.

We will look first at 3 October 2006, when the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee was meeting and John Halliday, the assistant chief executive of SPT, was before the committee. He made the position clear:

“SPT was the architect of the agreements and we negotiated the terms.”—[Official Report, Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, 3 October 2006; c 300.]

We know where it started: with SPT.

We heard from a number of members that there was “a strong economic case” for GARL. James Kelly said it in his opening speech, and Mary Fee said that

“the viability of the project was never questioned”.

However, in paragraph 32 of the committee’s preliminary stage report, Glasgow Airport Ltd is reported as saying:

“As the bill stands, we think that it is as likely to have an adverse effect on the airport as it is to have a positive effect”.—[Official Report, Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, 8 May 2006; c 57.]

Right at the outset, even the airport operator was unconvinced.

Patricia Ferguson said that the rail link would take “cars off the road”. Well, at paragraph 38 of the report, we read about

“reductions of 0.5% and 0.8% in total M8 traffic flows by 2030.”

We are talking about single-figure numbers of cars being taken off the motorway. At paragraph 40, we read that the bus operators expected the number of people who would use the bus to double. Therefore, GARL would hardly be displacing anything.

The committee recorded its slight scepticism about the claimed economic benefits at paragraph 26. In paragraph 17, it said:

“patronage figures are low.”

Looking further, according to paragraph 221 of the consideration stage report, it was certainly possible that the project could cost as much as £210 million.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will Stewart Stevenson give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

From paragraph 34 of the consideration stage report, it is clear that not all the evidence was available to Parliament. Commercial confidentiality prevented negotiations with the airport from being fully revealed to Parliament, so we made the decision in some ignorance. Paragraph 36 of the report says that

“The Committee remains extremely disappointed”

by that.

The costs on the airport campus were to be £5 million but ended up at £70 million. In the detailed costings that were brought to Parliament, not a single line item approaches the figure of £70 million.

I supported the project initially, but it was ill conceived in its detail. The reason for that lies at the door of parliamentary colleagues in the Labour Party and their allies in SPT.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In my opening speech, I described the debate as a spat between the Government and the Labour Party. The debate has been that and little else.

We have learned some interesting facts. We learned that John Mason has undertaken a form of world tour to assess airport rail links in a number of countries. I was glad to hear that he is a frugal man after my own heart; he assured us that he travelled on budget airlines.

A number of the serious issues that have been raised have been confused. Some members have sought to confuse and conflate issues to try to make something where nothing exists.

The whole argument comes down to the questionable business case. Rising costs called that business case into question, even if we accepted it at the outset. The Labour Party used the line that the decision to cancel the project was based on affordability rather than desirability. That indicates that Labour does not understand the importance of a business case in such a project. I would fully expect a business case to be produced for any such project or any attempt to restart the project in the long term.

The facts are simple. We can question the comment that the project was ill conceived—there is a side argument to have about that—but the project quickly demonstrated itself not to be justified on the ground of a business case, given the outturn costs of which we quickly became aware.

As I said, costs on the campus rose from £7.8 million to an estimated £70 million. The cost of the project went to an estimated £176 million—that is the figure that I have, but we have heard the suggestion that it could have run to £210 million. The project was proposed for the right reasons, but the costs got out of hand. I therefore believe that the Government took a responsible move in ending the project, although I would like to think that we could revisit it some day and achieve the objective.

A key issue that the Labour Party has put at the centre of the debate is the suggestion that something was wrong with the land deals. It is always a disappointment to buy something that is expensive and sell it cheaply. Anyone who has ever been involved in business might well have experience of that. However, the economy of the country and the value of things for buying and selling changed dramatically in the intervening period. That might have had something to do with the behaviour of a Labour Government elsewhere, but let us give it the benefit of the doubt.

As far as I am aware from the information that has been made available to date, there was no impropriety in the land deals. If the Labour Party suggests that there was, I am still waiting for the evidence to be presented to support that.

As a consequence, I find it hard to recommend that my Conservative colleagues vote for the motion or the SNP amendment, so we will abstain on both. I hope that we can put the debate behind us and begin to take a more optimistic approach to the provision of useful and usable local rail services to link Glasgow airport to the Scottish rail network.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We have heard a very different view of GARL in the last two speeches—and of the committee stage 1 report, from Stewart Stevenson. The stage 1 committee report also stated, in relation to the people who would use GARL:

“the largest of these groups in patronage terms is ‘Non Airport related trips’ (60% of the total GARL patronage in 2009). Even by 2030, this group will still account for almost half of the trips, while actual air passengers will still be a minority”.

I have mentioned the work that has been done on the Paisley corridor delivering the additional capacity on that part of the network. I have also mentioned the class 380 trains on the Ayrshire and Inverclyde routes, which are providing more than 9,000 additional seats to the existing fleet and between 50 and 120 additional seats in the peak hours. I know that there are still Labour MSPs who are determined to see that as a bad-news story for their own reasons.

As we have heard, the business case for GARL estimated that 67 operational jobs would be created. The Paisley corridor work that we took forward delivered 61 of those jobs and 45 per cent of the construction and operations jobs that were forecast in the business case were delivered by the parts of the project that were delivered.

In 2009, we asked the Labour Opposition which budgets it would cut to enable the continued delivery of the project and it offered none. We looked at a number of alternative funding options at the time, but none was viable.

Patricia Ferguson has been scaremongering relentlessly about some of the services in Glasgow. If Labour intends that the £176 million—now substantially more than that—that it would take to reinstate GARL is to be found by cutting the services that Patricia Ferguson professes to defend, perhaps we should be told that by the Labour Party. We have made perfectly clear, a number of times, our commitment to the services that Patricia Ferguson mentions.

As I said, we looked at a number of alternative funding options but we could not find any at that time that was viable. It is interesting that, at the time, the current supporters of a rail link were not prepared to contribute to its costs:

“The only direct financial support from the council would be through the contribution that is made to the running costs of SPT.”—[Official Report, Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, 24 April 2006; c 15.]

That was Glasgow City Council’s position on 24 April 2006. There is also this comment from BAA Scotland’s finance director, again in 2006:

“The rail link is about enabling Glasgow city centre to benefit from the airport, rather than allowing the airport to benefit.”—[Official Report, Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, 8 May 2006; c 55.]

The study that has been commissioned and led by Glasgow Airport Limited has been mentioned and Alex Johnstone will be pleased to hear that one of the proposals—one of the options—is a light rail study. That option is being looked at in relation to the study, which will inform the next surface access strategy. The airport is leading the study with other partners. In the longer term, the study may inform future investment by those partners.

As I have said, ministers will give due consideration to any private sector proposal to construct a rail link to Glasgow airport. However, no support will be given from the public purse for project development, construction and/or on-going operating costs.

The land that we have been talking about, of course, was acquired—as has been pointed out—by Strathclyde partnership for transport in February/March 2008 at the height of the property market. We are well aware of what happened to the property market in the wake of the global recession towards the end of 2008. We could never expect to recover the purchase price of the land when we came to sell it, given the downturn in land and property prices. We have followed the principles and guidance that are set out in the “Scottish Public Finance Manual”. Mary Fee says—

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Just to be clear, can the minister put on the record whether he had any visibility of the land transactions when the Scottish Government was selling off GARL land, or was it done solely by officials?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The crucial point—I have said this three times now, I think—is that the land transactions were carried out in accordance with the “Scottish Public Finance Manual”. The member will know—I think that he will know—that officials regularly buy and sell land—[Interruption.]

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Order, please.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

—and not every transaction comes to ministers unless there are specific reasons for it. I was going on to say that it was exactly the same process.

James Kelly has questioned my competence in this and that is up to him. Let us look a little bit at competence. The Labour Party, when it raised the issue most recently, did not even seem to know that the land was bought by SPT. The Labour Party did not know that its own councillors had been involved in buying the land in the first place. First it alleged, or tried to insinuate, a connection between the First Minister and a businessman who we have heard was not here to defend himself; it will be interesting to find out about the apology, which has been raised already. The Labour Party then moved from saying that ministers—the First Minister in particular—were too closely involved in this to saying that I am not involved enough.

The Labour Party is not exactly demonstrating competence in relation to this issue. It has all the figures, which have been released into the public domain. In response to Mary Fee’s comments, ministers have said that there has been no untoward activity, so there should not be an inquiry. If Labour thinks that there are untoward activities, it should demonstrate that if it wants an independent inquiry.

Labour has come up with absolutely nothing so far. As for being reluctant to debate the issue, I will debate it every time that Labour brings business to the chamber if it wants to. We have nothing more to say—[Interruption.]

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

You have nothing left to say about it, and nothing to fear in releasing the figures.

The incompetence, in my view, lies in the Labour Party. You have been six years in opposition and you still cannot work out how to be an effective Opposition. It is absolutely appalling.

Going back to the same subject, we do not have any evidence to support some of the accusations that are being made. I understand that the Labour Party might still aspire to be the next—or a future—Government of Scotland. Before you do that, you will have to become an effective Opposition—

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

This is not effective opposition, believe you me.

I have mentioned the things that we have delivered. We made the right decision at the time, and we stand by it, so let us look forward to the future. We have focused in the intervening four years on delivering record investment to improve and upgrade the transport infrastructure. There are many jobs that Labour never managed to complete, and we have completed them. I mentioned the M74; there is also the Airdrie to Bathgate line and the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. We are the first Government to commit to dualling the A9, and there is the Borders railway too.

Those are things that the Labour Party did not do. Your Liberal Democrat pals—the ones who were working with you in the past—are not here at all to defend what you have put up today. That tells its own story.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The investment has been key to the continuing economic recovery of this country—[Interruption.]

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I ask members to support the amendment in my name.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

It is outrageous that the Government has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the chamber to outline how it has wasted almost £30 million of taxpayers’ money to cancel a project that would have had tremendous benefits for the economy of Glasgow: the driver of growth in the west of Scotland.

However, it seems that the Government has had no hand in that loss; it is all the fault of the civil servants who sold off land that cost the people of Scotland £8.5 million for a grand total of £359,500. That is a massive loss to the public purse of more than £8 million for the land transactions alone.

Let us be clear. The minister has stated again and again that he has played no part in those transactions. A civil servant in the Scottish Government has, therefore, taken the decision to declare land surplus to requirements, despite the fact that there is still an act of Parliament—the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Act 2007; the fact that GARL still appears in the national planning framework; and the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, stated at a parliamentary committee:

“Essentially, the decision not to proceed with the Glasgow airport rail link was taken on the basis of the affordability of the project in the context of the Government’s programme.”—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 3 November 2009; c 2258.]

So, it was nothing at all to do with the project being ill-conceived, then.

Why, given those three facts, is a civil servant acting without any ministerial direction or oversight—which is what the minister has said—and declaring the pieces of land on the GARL corridor surplus to requirements and initiating their disposal? There is something there that does not quite make sense. I take on board the points from Government members that GARL was not a Government priority and that it had no intention of funding it. However, that does not mean that the Government should take a scorched-earth approach and ensure that a different Administration would not be able to implement the project. Even in the unlikely event that the Government achieves its aim of independence, the first Scottish Administration will now be unable to go ahead with the GARL project.

There is a precedent here. The Queensferry crossing, which could possibly be described as this Government’s flagship capital investment project, would not be going ahead if the previous Administration had taken the same view on projects as the current one. When Sarah Boyack was a minister, she was approached by officials regarding the sale of the land that was required to build the Forth replacement crossing. She insisted that, although it was not a priority for the Government at that time, it would be wrong to tie the hands of a future Administration. Where would we be now with the Queensferry crossing if the previous Administration had taken the same approach as the current one?

However, the land was declared surplus and sold at a fraction of the purchase price not by a Scottish Government minister but by an unnamed civil servant. A civil servant has acted independently of ministers, an act of Parliament and the national planning framework, but another twist is that this particular official also seems to have operated independently of other members of staff within his department. While all that was being done, a group of individuals, businesses and local authorities were sitting down with Transport Scotland to discuss the public transport options for Glasgow airport. As a result of those discussions, Transport Scotland part-funded a report that included an option recommending a train line to carry passengers direct from the airport to the centre of Glasgow—

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The member is making it up now. [Interruption.]

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I ask the member to reconsider that last point, because there was no recommendation contained in that study that there should be a heavy rail link to the airport. Given that the member says that the civil servant whom he keeps on talking about acted alone, is he saying that ministers should be involved in such decisions and that the manual that proscribes us from being involved—the same manual that Labour followed—is wrong? Perhaps he could clarify that.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I have looked at the Aecom report, although I do not know whether the minister has done so. I said that the report includes a recommendation for a train line to carry passengers direct from the airport to the centre of Glasgow. If the minister can point to the section of the report where it does not say that, I will happily come back to the chamber.

Officials at Transport Scotland seem to have spent public funds on a report that recommends a train line to Glasgow airport, while a different official has sold the land at a massive loss and killed the possibility of the recommendation ever being realised. We have two parts of Transport Scotland working against each other, and we have a minister with no knowledge or oversight of any of it. When we have two parts of the same Government department acting independently of ministers, working against each other and wasting public money, the only reasonable option is for a full independent inquiry. I think that the public will be wondering why the minister has not already instructed one.

Local Police Services

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08172, in the name of Graeme Pearson, on justice. I will allow only a few seconds for members to change places, as we are extremely tight for time in the debate.

I call Graeme Pearson to speak to and move the motion. Mr Pearson, you have a maximum of eight minutes.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

Prior to the 2011 election, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s resistance to the creation of a single police force was well known. Post the election, economic realities affecting countries across the western hemisphere obviously persuaded him otherwise. After years of inaction, we witnessed a hell-for-leather pursuit of reorganisation. Promises came from the cabinet secretary, the convener of the Scottish Police Authority and the new chief constable of a national police service committed to delivering local policing and dedicated to local community partnerships, but the Government’s actions have delivered otherwise.

Our debate today is driven by the effects of two Scottish National Party directives to the Scottish Police Authority: that there must be 17,327 police officers across the country, at an added cost of around £35 million to the budget; and that, at the same time, the police force has to deliver £140 million in savings by 2016. As a result of those directives, 1,200 police staff posts have gone. Although the chief constable has “no policy” on backfilling those posts, when he appeared before the Justice Committee this week he finally accepted that some officers are having to engage in administrative tasks. I know that those tasks include personnel, recruitment, warrant management, intelligence analysis and others that have been announced recently.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Will the member enlighten us as to the Labour answer to those two directives? What number of police officers does he think that there should be in Scotland? From which budget should the £40 million be deducted?

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I hope that, if the cabinet secretary gives me time to develop my argument, he will see where we are coming from.

Seventy of the people who have been given voluntary redundancy previously delivered citations for the court, and those duties are to be passed to police officers on patrol. So we are moving from backroom bobbies to police posties. It will be useful to hear from front-line officers whether they can spare the estimated 123,000 hours that it takes each year to deliver those citations. The absence of comment from the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents seems to indicate that street officers have sufficient time to take on additional administrative tasks and postie duties. All of that is to deliver on Mr MacAskill’s cuts.

The amendment that has been lodged reeks of complacency. Although crime is down to a 39-year low, that outcome has not solely been delivered in the past few years; it is thanks to 20 years of hard work by all concerned. There are 1,000 additional officers but, depending on who one speaks to, that number might or might not include up to 350 officers who are paid for from local authority budgets. We should remember the 1,200 support staff whose jobs have been lost. In any case, the £35 million cost of the additional posts pales in comparison with the £140 million of budget cuts. Mr MacAskill would do well to keep company with Theresa May, who also lauds the continuing drop in reported crime—in the case of England, to 1980 levels. She has also pursued a reduction—in her case, of 14,000 officers across England. He could keep company with just about every justice minister in Europe, Canada and America.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Will the member take an intervention?

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I ask the cabinet secretary please to let me continue.

The Government’s budget decisions have resulted in the need to consider the closure of 65 police office counters and reductions in service at a further 75. That means a cut in service in more than half the offices in Scotland, even though not one additional police officer will be placed on the street. I am sure that, during the debate, we will hear about the impact of that, as it affects virtually every region and city in the country. To name but a few, the changes will affect stations in Airdrie, Coatbridge, Wishaw, Portobello, Anderston in Glasgow, Oakley and Bucksburn.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I wonder what Mr Pearson’s comment is on Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, who has said:

“They”—

that is, the UK Government—

“need to change course and accept Labour’s argument and the expert evidence that a 12% reduction in police spending would be manageable”.

Does Mr Pearson support a 12 per cent reduction in police spending?

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

If the cabinet secretary spent more time worrying about Scotland and getting it organised, we might have a better outcome in the political life of Scotland.

The statistics that are given in support of the closures are largely admitted to be ropey and historical. The closures are not driven by the desire to deliver better local policing or to support local partnerships, as we are told; they are driven by budget cuts, and that is shameful. Although some are of the view that the use of police stations is no longer necessary and that we should move to mobile phones, the internet and Twitter, in many places, the police office is the heart and soul of the community. For parents worried about a missing child, relatives worrying about a missing grandparent, a youth going home early in the morning worrying that he is going to be accosted, a young woman worried about a stranger who is following her, or a homeless person who is facing a bout of anxiety, a counter staff member offers the quality of service that they need.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Mr Pearson give way?

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I am afraid not.

Some years ago, a householder watching the BBC news at 9 o’clock saw that a terrible murder had been committed in Glasgow in which a woman and child had been stabbed to death. He realised that a workmate, who had unexpectedly called at his home and who was then seated in his kitchen alongside his wife and baby, was the likely murderer. The householder left the house in panic and ran half a mile to an open police office and made a report at the counter, which, thankfully, resulted in a successful outcome—a murderer arrested and no possibility of further mayhem. In such circumstances, I do not think that a tweet would offer any solution or that an e-mail would support us. We must value the work that our counter assistants carry out.

Mr MacAskill says that we are investing in local policing and enhancing services, but the Government looks increasingly like the ministry of truth. It keeps repeating the mantra, “Crime down, numbers up, life good.” However, the findings of the Scottish policing performance framework—the cabinet secretary’s own framework report—announced that, in some communities, 50 per cent of people do not believe that the police prevent crime, 87 per cent believe that the crime rate is the same as or worse than it was a year ago and two thirds do not bother to report thefts or housebreaking. Communities are under stress and need support.

I suggest that members look to their communities and support my motion. I hope that they have the courage to back their local police service and avoid being caught up in the mantra of “Crime down, numbers up, life good.” Life will be good if we can maintain a local police service that is worthy of the name.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government’s budget cuts are having a significant impact on the link between communities and their local police service; notes concern at plans to close police station public counters and reduce opening hours; also notes concern at the use of police officers to cover for cuts in the number of police staff; encourages people to make the case to save the service offered by their local police station and stand up for their local police service; condemns the practice of back-filling of staff posts by police officers, and calls on the Scottish Government to defend local policing.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I welcome the opportunity to respond to Graeme Pearson’s motion on behalf of the Scottish Government. It may be helpful if I start with the context, which will bring some balance to what we have heard so far.

Policing in Scotland is performing excellently, notwithstanding what Mr Pearson suggests. Crime is at a 39-year low, violent crime is down by almost half since 2006-07 and homicides are at their lowest since records began. The risk of being a victim of crime is falling, and confidence and satisfaction in the police are high, as figures that were published yesterday demonstrate.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Although the figures that the cabinet secretary has quoted are welcome, does he accept that reported crime is on the increase?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Across the board, statistics and evidence show that policing in Scotland is doing remarkably well, and the onus is on the chamber to support rather than denigrate the police.

The situation in Scotland is in stark contrast to the situation in England and Wales. We have more than 1,000 more police officers than we had in 2007. The backdrop to the debate is strong policing that is valued and trusted by communities throughout Scotland, not the negative picture that is painted by Graeme Pearson’s motion. Furthermore, the establishment of the single service will safeguard and sustain what we hold dear about our police service.

Money is tight. We all know that—even Yvette Cooper. However, it is the UK Government that is cutting budgets, not the Scottish Government.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I will give way in a moment.

Westminster is cutting our budget by 11 per cent in real terms over five years, so we must cut our cloth accordingly and ensure that every penny is invested wisely. Yvette Cooper wants a 12 per cent cut. Perhaps Mr Pearson can tell us what Labour in Scotland wants.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I take it, from what the cabinet secretary says, that there is no cut in Scotland. However, £140 million is a substantial cut and is having such an impact that the chief constable does not believe that he can sustain current police numbers much longer.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

We know where the cuts are coming from—Westminster. They started under Darling, they are continuing under the coalition and they would be maintained under Yvette Cooper.

The single service will remove the duplication that was built into the previous structures, in which there were eight police forces as well as the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and the Scottish Police Services Authority. We no longer need directors for each corporate function or eight chief constables. The new structure allows more resources to be focused where they can have the greatest impact, supporting outcomes and, above all, keeping people safe. Local policing is the bedrock, which is why there is now a local commander for each division in Scotland who works with communities, councils and other partners to shape and deliver policing. There is a local policing plan for every council ward, every local authority has a named contact on the Scottish Police Authority board and more councillors than ever before have the opportunity to have their say on policing in their areas.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

The cabinet secretary is at pains to tell us all the things that will not now be needed. Does he really expect the people in my constituency in Possilpark, which is adjacent to the Baird Street and Maryhill police stations, to think that the cut to their stations’ opening hours is good enough? In the case of Possilpark, does he think that a Monday-to-Friday, nine-to-five service is really what that area deserves?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

As I can say is that what I think people want is a solution to the problem.

“If you are the victim of a crime you don’t really care where the officers come from so long as something is being done.”

I agree. That comment was made by Graeme Pearson MSP in the Daily Record on 22 August 2010.

Local matters are being enhanced by access to national—

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I remind the cabinet secretary that my colleague asked him a question. He was asked whether providing daytime-only services is sufficient in a place such as Possilpark.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I responded with what I thought were your quite credible and appropriate remarks from three years ago, Mr Pearson. [Interruption.]

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

As I say, we now have access to national and regional expertise, helicopters and a specialist crime division.

We know that we face unprecedented budget challenges, but the work that Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority are undertaking seeks to deliver the savings that this Parliament agreed and ensure the most effective and efficient use of resources.

The review of public counters at police stations, which has generated a lot of interest, is being progressed by Police Scotland in discussion with the SPA. I emphasise that that review is about public counters, not stations. Front counters that are not used will close; some will retain their current opening hours; others will open for longer; and some will provide an improved service by relocating. For example, the counter in my constituency will move into the Edinburgh east hub, which is a much more sensible location.

Budgets are tight. The police are using the 101 non-emergency number and social media. Social media is not a matter to be denigrated; many on the Opposition benches use it themselves to communicate with their constituents, so why should they criticise the police for using it? Proposals are under way, and we must support our police in that work.

I do not accept the premise of Graeme Pearson’s motion. Policing continues to perform excellently, and has the confidence and trust of communities and partners. It should not be denigrated by politicians.

It bears repeating:

“Crime is at a 39-year low, violent crime is down by almost half since 2006-07 and homicides are at their lowest since records began.”

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I ask the cabinet secretary once again whether, despite the splendid figures he gives, he will accept that reported crime is on the increase.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

We have 1,000 additional officers—[Laughter.]

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

—unlike the collapse in officer numbers faced south of the border.

The record of our Scottish police service is quite outstanding; it ill behoves politicians to denigrate those who have done an outstanding job.

This Government will not implement the Winsor package and we will not privatise policing. We will support local policing in our communities and we will ensure that expertise is available to every community and that Police Scotland can perform continually the outstanding service that it provides day in, day out. Others may denigrate the police—some of them should know better, given their service, and should not join in that catcalling. We should recognise the outstanding police service that we have in Scotland. I reject Graeme Pearson’s motion and move my alternative.

I move amendment S4M-08172, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:

“recognises that recorded crime is at a 39-year low, with homicides the lowest since records began, crimes of handling offensive weapons down by 60% and violent crime down by almost a half since 2007; welcomes the 1,000 additional officers that the Scottish Government has delivered since 2007; acknowledges the significant progress made by Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to ensure that policing in Scotland continues to perform excellently, despite UK Government budget cuts; recognises that local policing remains the bedrock of the new service, supported by the ability to share expertise and equipment as required, and fully supports Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority in their work to ensure the most efficient and effective use of resources.”

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I congratulate the Scottish Labour Party on lodging its motion on the proposed closure to members of the public of police counters.

The closure of police counters at more than 60 stations and the reduction of the opening hours at 80 stations are a significant blow to communities. The importance that people place on that service, which provides not only a direct means of contacting the police at a time of their choosing but reassurance that there is a police presence, has been summarily dismissed by both the cabinet secretary and Police Scotland’s chief constable. Consequently, while many police stations will remain open to deal with offenders, either to question them or to take them into custody, the proposal remains that many stations, in which police counters are one of the most visible examples of front-line and local policing, will be closed to the public.

The proposals for police counters vary and will have different impacts throughout Scotland. In my region of Central Scotland, for example, the proposal is to remove public counter services from Shotts and Uddingston. With no public counter service in Shotts, local residents will have to travel to Wishaw, which is 7 miles away, to access a public counter service. That journey can take more than 40 minutes by public transport.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Will the member take an intervention?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I have a further point to make first, if the cabinet secretary does not mind.

In addition, given that the East Kilbride station is designated as a prescribed station under the sexual offences regulations, offenders who are under notification requirements need to access the counter service at that station to report to an officer, but that service will no longer be open 24/7. Instead, it will be open only from 8 am to 6 pm each day. That is a real cause for concern, especially in view of the number of sex offenders in the community who are already breaching the terms of their licence.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Is the member saying that no counter should close or have its hours varied—even counters that have had only one or no visitations within a four-week period? Is that the position of the Conservative Party?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary is on very shaky ground with some of the information that he cites about the use of the police station counter service. Given that it is a front-line service, rather than being reactive and closing counters, we should do more to ensure that they serve the public who use them.

When we ask the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government legitimate questions about policing, the automatic response is twofold: they state that such decisions are operational matters for the chief constable and that it would be wrong for ministers to get involved; and, when they are pressed about budget cuts, they blame them on Westminster.

However, the police budget is decided by this Government, and even a cursory examination of the facts reveals the truth—namely, that the Scottish Government has decided that the police budget is set to fall by 6.3 per cent in real terms in 2014 and by more than 9 per cent in 2015. Meanwhile, the inconvenient truth for the Scottish Government is that, by contrast, the amount of money that it has to spend will fall by only 1.3 per cent in 2014 and 1.9 per cent in 2015. It is clear that, instead of blaming Westminster, the SNP needs to accept responsibility for the cuts in the police budget.

Furthermore, the Police Scotland public consultation on police counter closures was far from adequate. In the first instance, it was carried out online and without any meaningful equality impact assessment being done, which meant that the elderly and less technologically savvy people were excluded. In addition, the footfall analysis that was carried out by Police Scotland was done years ago. Crucially, it was done before 43 stations closed and 23 had their hours reduced, which means that it is highly likely that footfall will have gone up. In some rural areas, no footfall analysis was carried out, so Police Scotland just guesstimated. In those circumstances, the case for rerunning and extending the consultation to ensure that it is properly representative is compelling.

The Labour motion mentions the backfilling of staff posts with police officers, which makes no economic sense. According to Unison, 200 police officers are involved in drawing up documents to do with police reform, at a cost of £7 million.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That is economic madness, and the Scottish Conservatives will support the motion.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

On the subject of counter closures and hours, I remind Graeme Pearson of what he said on Sunday, when we were talking about the issue. He asked why Giffnock and Helensburgh police stations were not closing. I wonder what his colleagues Ken Macintosh and Jackie Baillie would think about that.

Graeme Pearson rose—

That is what the member said.

It is important to restate some of the Scottish Government’s achievements. I will name but a few. Crime is at its lowest level in not 10, 20 or 30 years, but 39 years.

Drew Smith (Glasgow) (Lab) rose—

Youth crime has been halved and an additional 1,000 officers have been provided. All that and more has been done against a background of unprecedented cuts from Westminster. Those achievements should be welcomed across the chamber, as they deliver for the people of Scotland.

What people want to know—indeed, the question has been asked before—is the number of police officers that Labour would cut. Labour’s leaders at Westminster—and we know from recent events that Labour in Scotland takes its orders from Westminster—want to cut the budget by 12 per cent, which would mean a cut of more than 2,000 police officers from Scotland’s streets. Is that what the Labour Party in Scotland supports? Does it think that that will make our communities and people feel safer? The simple answer is no, it will not.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Such a move will simply put our communities at risk and will, as the Labour motion puts it, have

“a significant impact on the link between communities and their local police service”.

It is the Labour Party in Scotland that is the threat to local policing. However, we do not know whether that is actually Labour’s policy because the one thing that it is good at is having no policy, other than the promise of a cuts commission to scrap the idea of universality—

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

That is something that it supposedly supports in order to end—as its leader stated then later denied—the something-for-nothing culture. Although the comments in question have been removed from the Labour website, everyone can still watch them being made on YouTube—and I would advise them to do so.

How, then, can we believe what Labour says? The member who lodged today’s motion, Mr Pearson, recently said that

“breaking up the UK could have direct impact on the ability of Scottish police officers to do their job”,

but he was contradicted by former director of intelligence at the old Strathclyde Police force, who said:

“I simply do not accept these criticisms of Scotland’s abilities to have effective security arrangements ... An excellent Scottish intelligence organisation could be developed in an independent country.”

Who are we to believe: the member or the former director of intelligence? Is that just another example of Labour’s project fear?

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Is today’s motion not yet another example? Only last week, the head of Police Scotland told the member that there is “no policy” on backfilling. Members can read that in the Official Report—it is there for everyone to see. Who, again, are we to believe: Mr Pearson or the current head of Police Scotland?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I do not know what axe certain members have to grind—[Interruption.]

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

We need to work with rather than against Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to ensure that any reform benefits people over politicians.

According to Alison McInnes, who I notice is in the chamber,

“Community policing must be able to adapt to local circumstances and need”,

which is exactly what the Government is doing. We are responding to changes in and cuts to Scotland’s budget that are being driven by Ms McInnes’s party in the coalition at Westminster. As far as I can see, the Liberals have no policy other than to impose, through their man in the Treasury, further cuts on Scotland and have nothing constructive to offer other than to join their partners in project fear and doom-mongering.

This SNP Government is protecting local communities by putting police on the street and combating and preventing crime. That is what the people want and surely what this Parliament should be delivering.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Sandra White had four minutes in which she could have mentioned her police station in her constituency, which is closing; instead, she chose to defend her ministers on the front bench.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the member give way?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I am afraid that you are not getting any of my speech to do what you should have done in your own.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

My apologies, Presiding Officer.

I will talk specifically about the cabinet secretary’s constituency, in which three stations—Howdenhall, Portobello and Craigmillar—are affected. Howdenhall and Portobello’s working hours will change from 7 am until midnight to 8 am to 6 pm, while Craigmillar will close to the public altogether, despite 1,201 demands having been made of the station assistant in the two weeks during which the review took place.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Will the member give way?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I would like to get a bit further into my speech.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it appropriate for a member to state that Craigmillar police station is closing when it is not? As I have stated, the counter is relocating to the Edinburgh east hub. Is it not appropriate for the member to be accurate in what she states in the chamber?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

If the cabinet secretary had let me get further into my speech, I would have commented on the shared facilities. He is clearly a little bit tetchy today.

Although I was instinctively against the cuts, I decided to ask my constituents what they thought before I sent in my submission to the police. When I surveyed 2,000 people in Portobello, just under 200 people responded. I asked three questions and gave constituents space to reply without responding to any questions. I asked for their views on local accessible policing, what they felt about the 101 number, and whether they supported the changes. Ninety-six per cent of people opposed what the cabinet secretary is doing, a handful of them said that it was okay, and one said:

“Never mind the Police Station, tell the Council, my grass needs cut”.

Ninety-six per cent of people, or 96 per cent of the cabinet secretary’s constituents, think that what he is doing to Portobello police station is wrong. I will tell him why, in their words.

When asked about the 101 number, a constituent said:

“The 101 number is ok for general enquiries but useless for anything else. Face to Face contact is very important when reporting crime or requiring re-assurance.”

Another said:

“If you are upset by something happening it can be difficult to speak to someone on the phone especially for people of my generation—I am 74. It is much easier to speak to someone face to face.”

A third person said:

“I would much rather prefer to discuss a situation face to face. Officers are more likely to assess how stressful the impact of the situation is on an individual. A lot of older people are unable to convey their message over the phone.”

The person said that a lot of older people cannot hear or understand, or they have no confidence, and that the approach could lead to a reduction in reported crime.

Another person said:

“101 is faceless and does not inspire confidence. Not happy to use 101. The person at the other end is not local to the area. Police on the ground are familiar with Portobello, and the people as a whole.”

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Will the member give way?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you.

When Graeme Pearson took some of that survey to the police last week, he was told that my questions were loaded and that I should not have asked them.

In the space that was given to constituents to raise any other issues that they felt were important, one said:

“Part of the reason I, and my family, have moved to Portobello is the family-friendly nature of much of the town, and the security the local police station offers.”

Another said that it was ironic that on the same day that they received my survey, they received a survey from the cabinet secretary, who was concerned about the rising spate of break-ins and recent antisocial behaviour in the area. Will he share with members the results of that survey?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

There is much more that I could share. I have the full survey responses, and they are with the police. I am happy to share them with the cabinet secretary.

Portobello is a bustling town. When the sun shines, Edinburgh goes to Portobello. It needs a local police station on the High Street. It has been there for 117 years, and it will be the local constituency MSP who closed it. That is an absolute disgrace.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Crumbs.

Graeme Pearson said in a Justice Sub-Committee on Policing meeting:

“I indicated that the business case might well justify some offices closing or amending their hours. My position is not that there should be no closures”.—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 31 October 2013; c 259.]

Fair enough; I have said it.

I think that we all accept that there is a background of swingeing cuts to the Scottish budget, and that that is reflected in the budgets that we have to apply. Police Scotland therefore had to look to cut £64 million from the budget this year. It is almost there, but it has more next year.

What do the public want in a time of austerity? If a choice—it is about choices—has to be made between police counters being serviced when there is little usage of them and the police being visible and acting on the streets of our towns and villages, I think that we can all predict the answer. The question is: are police counters necessary in all circumstances? When did members last use a police counter? If we look at the usage figures from the earlier police review and the consultation, we will see, frankly, that it would be hard to justify keeping them all open, as people use mobiles, emails, texting, 101 and 999 in emergencies.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I do not have enough time.

I want to deal with Kezia Dugdale’s point. In a recent meeting with the divisional commander for Midlothian, Jeanette McDiarmid, we had a discussion about the availability of police officers if somebody dials 101. She raised the whole profile of the diary car. Somebody will phone up, say that there has been an incident, and it will be determined that it is not urgent. They are asked when it would be suitable for the police to call, they are put on a list in the diary, and one police officer—two are not always needed—goes out at the person’s convenience to their home. If they are working or picking up children from school, that visit is done at their convenience. It is a face-to-face approach.

The importance of keeping contact with the police beyond reporting incidents is also important. I think that Margaret Mitchell raised the issue of the public simply being able to go in and tell the police about things that have happened. It is a good thing that the police go out, as I do. I do not sit in my Galashiels office; I do surgeries in supermarkets such as Tesco three Saturdays a month. I collect intelligence and hear from people. The police are thinking of doing their surgeries in supermarkets and libraries to be in touch with the public where the public are and at their convenience, rather than asking them to have to travel to the location of a police counter.

In my patch, it has been proposed that some hours will be marginally reduced, such as in Penicuik, Peebles and Galashiels, and that there will be two counter closures, in Lauder and Melrose.

Despite the publicising of the proposals, I have had not one email of concern about them from any constituent. I received one email that sought clarification as to whether it was the police station being closed or the counter, but the sender also praised the fact that they were seeing police in their village as they had never seen them before.

As for the visibility to which Margaret Mitchell referred, Gorebridge in my constituency has no counter availability but the big police station is highly visible, with a big “Police” sign, and it is very busy. I know that because I have been on shifts with the police officers. The police have briefings in the station before going out. The folk in Gorebridge are not unhappy about not having a police counter.

We could go the way of England, with police officers disappearing like snow off a dyke and money being spent on 41 police commissioners, elected on less than 20 per cent of the vote and with annual salaries of between £70,000 and £100,000 a year. I think that the Scottish people would prefer to see us spending our money on police officers on the beat, on crime detection and reducing crime across the piece and, frankly, keeping the peace.

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to raise concerns about proposals to close police stations, particularly those in my constituency. The proposals will have a detrimental effect on the link between communities and the local police service. On this, the Scottish Government has been left wanting, but instead of defending local policing it is trying to evade and make excuses.

As the motion clearly states, the proposals are part of a wider programme of cuts to police staff that can result, and is resulting, in the backfilling of staff posts by police officers. That does not make financial sense and it means that officers are distracted from tackling crime and are instead sat behind a desk. In my constituency, the Selkirk and Coldstream stations are set to close to the public, with Eyemouth moving to a category E station, meaning that it will no longer have full-time cover. Just outside my constituency, in Christine Grahame’s constituency, the nearby Lauder and Melrose stations, which I know are used by my constituents, are also set to go. In the Police Scotland consultation, which we already know used old data, no figures are provided on footfall for any of those stations, so their closure is being proposed without any knowledge of how often my constituents use them.

The fact is that even if those stations are not heavily used, they provide an important local service and give residents the chance to interact with the police. The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland has warned that town centres such as Selkirk’s could be under threat because closures will sever the link between the police and the local business community. In the face of the closure of courts and now the closure to the public of police stations, many residents in the Borders will feel that justice is being withdrawn from the area. Frankly, given the sheer extent of the proposed closures and the refusal of the Scottish Government to intervene, I am shocked by the audacity of the Government’s amendment, which claims that local policing is the

“bedrock of the new service.”

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

John Lamont mentioned the fact that local businessmen were complaining to him about the closure of police counters. Are you aware of any businessman who has approached you specifically to say “I’m concerned about the issue because I’ve been into a police office in this way”, or are they more concerned about post office closures in their own area? Is that not the reality?

John Lamont (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

All that I can say is that businesses have expressed concerns to me about closures. I also have disabled residents who are unable to use the phone service or get to other locations but who can get to the counter in the local police station. As a result of the reforms or changes—the closures—such residents will no longer be able to interact with the police in the way that they have done in the past. Mr Crawford might be happy to support the proposals, but I am not.

It is worth being clear about why Police Scotland is having to make the savings: it is because the Scottish Government decided that moving to a single police force would save over £100 million a year. Where did that figure come from? It came from an outline business case, drafted in 2011, about which the financial memorandum to the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 said that it

“does not provide a plan or blueprint for the future delivery of the services and it is not intended to be used to set future budgets”.

My party wanted the Scottish Government to provide a full business case for police reform so that we were all clear on the savings that would be made under the single police force; instead, the Scottish Government has plucked figures out of the air and imposed huge budget cuts on our police.

There is no wriggle-room for the Scottish Government on this, because it made the decision on the policing budget and the cuts are a direct result of decisions made by the Scottish National Party Government. This is its mess and it needs to intervene to ensure that local policing is protected.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Local policing is being protected by the Scottish Government. The significant impact of changes to links between communities and their police service can be seen south of the border rather than here, where I think we are doing very well. South of the border, some 4,516 officers disappeared between March 2012 and March 2013. It was the fourth consecutive year of cuts, and 14,186 officers, or 10 per cent of the police, have disappeared south of the border since 2009. A total of 1,300 stations have closed in England. In The Sunday Telegraph on 18 March 2012, Jill Grieve of the Countryside Alliance said that this is the

“death knell for the bobby on the beat.”

That is happening because of Con-Dem policies south of the border.

I believe that we are getting things right here. I am not saying that everything in the garden is rosy, but the reality is that we have to deal with the austerity cuts that have been passed on by Westminster. I believe that the cabinet secretary and the chief constable are taking the right decisions in ensuring that bobbies are on the beat, which gives the public confidence and has resulted in a 39-year low in crime. Having been an elected member in Aberdeen City Council and here for some 14 years, and having served on a police board for 13 years, I have to say that complaints about the police are at an all-time low in my mailbag, too. That is something for which congratulations are due.

I find it bizarre that, as Christine Grahame mentioned, Mr Pearson said on 31 October:

“I indicated that the business case might well justify some offices closing or amending their hours. My position is not that there should be no closures”.—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 31 October 2013; c 259.]

Yet today, we see something different in the motion. I think that Labour is grandstanding and trying to grab headlines, rather than dealing with the realities that we have to face.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

No. I do not have time.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

At that meeting of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, the chief constable read out extracts from an email from a member of staff who was on counter duties, who decided to take voluntary severance. That person said:

“I did not take this course of action lightly but having experienced a vast reduction in workload over the years, it seemed to me only a matter of time before this happened. We have also been constantly warned for the past three years that this may happen ... The workload has been affected for a variety of reasons, the first being the advent of the Force Contact Centre taking away a huge percentage of phone calls to the front office”.

These are the realities of the world that we live in. People are phoning, emailing and tweeting. People are using modern communication methods to get in touch with the police.