Plenary, 01 Mar 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, March 1, 2007

Official Report 751KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2749)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

It is a fair bet that the First Minister and I will disagree about many things during the weeks leading up to the election. However, just for today, I wonder whether we can find some consensus on an important issue. Is the First Minister aware that it is exactly two years since toddler Andrew Morton was shot and killed by an air-gun? Andrew's mother is in Parliament today. After that tragedy, the First Minister said that if more action was needed, he would not hold back. Does he agree that much more action is still needed to tackle the scourge of air-guns in Scotland?

First, I thank Tommy Sheridan for giving me the opportunity to discuss this matter with him yesterday. Today, I am sure that we will all want to pass on our continuing condolences to the families who are represented in the gallery on the anniversary of a tragedy that still affects their lives every single day.

Of course much more remains to be done on the implementation and enforcement of the legislation on air-guns. The Minister for Justice, all the other ministers and I are committed to ensuring that more is done.

I very much welcome that statement. Is the First Minister aware that even after the new legislation to which he referred comes into force, there will still be absolutely no restrictions on the owning of air-guns by people over the age of 18? Andrew Morton's murderer was over 18; the new law would have done nothing to stop him getting his hands on an air-gun. Does the First Minister agree with me that if we are to prevent such a tragedy from happening again, we must now put restrictions not just on who can sell air-guns but on who can own them?

There are two points to make. First, the new laws will have an impact on the ability of someone over the age of 18 to get hold of an air-gun, as Ms Sturgeon describes it. The new laws will ensure that only registered firearms dealers operating under very strict conditions can purchase and sell on air-guns.

It is also important that we take any action that is required in conjunction with, and with the advice and support of, the police forces of Scotland. Although the immediate reaction of many of us across all parties, not just to the incident two years ago but to other incidents, was that it would be sensible to move towards a ban or full-scale registration, the police gave us very strong advice that that would be an inappropriate response. The police advised us that what we had to do—indeed, it is what we have done—was to increase the minimum sentence for possession, introduce a system of properly registered dealers so that sales over the internet could be banned, and in that way tighten the regime and reduce the likelihood of future incidents.

I remain to be convinced that that will be sufficient in the longer term. However, I am willing to take the police at their word and insist that they have a go at implementing the legislation effectively. That is why the Minister for Justice and I will meet representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland this month to ensure that the police are targeting those areas in Scotland that we know are most affected in order to deal with those who are selling air-guns and those who already possess them and to take action to reduce the likelihood of any incidents that would have an impact on other individuals in the locality.

Again, I thank the First Minister for his answer, but I point out to him that the president of ACPOS said that, in his opinion, air-guns should be subject to the same laws as all firearms. Clearly, there is a mood to make even more progress. I also point out to the First Minister that, under the new law, a registered firearms dealer will still be able to sell an air-gun to anyone over the age of 18, as long as they do it in person and take the name and address of the purchaser. Clearly, there is room to go much further.

I remind the First Minister that nearly two thirds of all gun crime in Scotland involves air-guns and that that figure is on the increase. Many members of his party—Frank McAveety, for example—support restrictions on the ownership of air-guns. As I said earlier, we will disagree on many issues in the next few weeks, but can we resolve today that this will not be one of them? I know that it is a reserved issue, but will the First Minister agree that whichever of our parties wins the election, we will immediately open with Westminster whatever negotiations are necessary to allow Scotland to move towards a ban on the general, unregulated ownership of air-guns?

I have tried to explain that the issue is not negotiations with Westminster. I hope that an effort is not being made to turn what could be a consensual debate into one along constitutional lines.

The issue is the discussion between us and the police forces of Scotland about what is the best way to tackle incidents involving air-guns. Both at the time and since, the police have strongly advised us that a full-scale registration scheme or a ban would be inappropriate. I keep open those options in the longer term—I do not believe that we should count them out. However, I am willing to give the police the opportunity to prove that their view on the issue was right and that they can successfully implement and enforce the legislation that has been agreed.

Over recent years, the legislation has increased the minimum age for owning air weapons from 14 to 18. There is a new offence of possessing an air weapon in a public place without a reasonable excuse and a new minimum sentence of five years that goes alongside that. In addition, of course, there are bans on imports and on sales over the internet and there is a system of registered dealers. All those new laws have now been put in place with the consent of the police and I assume that the police are willing to enforce them effectively.

This month, the Minister for Justice and I will meet the police forces of Scotland to ensure that they move to implement those new laws immediately. We will monitor how they do that and, in the longer term, if that is not successful, we keep open the option of holding further discussions with them about moving towards registration or a ban.

I suggest to the First Minister that if we think that even the new law is deficient, we have a duty to act now. I remind him of some incidents that have taken place just this year: in Glasgow, an 18-year-old was shot with an air-gun; a pensioner was shot on a train with an air-gun; and, in Dundee, two 11-year-olds were shot with an air-gun. Air-gun crime is a serious issue of public safety and it is on the increase. I make it clear that, in government, the Scottish National Party will make it a priority to move to restrict the ownership of air-guns and I hope that, when the time comes, we will have the support of all parties in the Parliament.

I reiterate the same points. In response not just to the tragic incident that took place two years ago today but to the pattern that existed across Scotland at the time, especially in Strathclyde, we took action, based on the advice of the police forces, to strengthen the law. That action has been taken and the new laws are now in place. The issue for us today is enforcement of those laws, which have raised the minimum age, restricted sales, made the registration of dealers a requirement and stopped people possessing air weapons in any public place without a reasonable reason. I have no doubt that the enforcement of all those laws will have an impact on the number of incidents that still occur in Scotland today. Every such incident is an issue for us. The immediate challenge is for the police forces of Scotland to enforce those laws. We are willing to give them a chance to implement the laws that they requested. If those laws are proved not to be sufficient, we will of course be prepared to consider going further.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2750)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

I hope that time will be found to talk about the implementation of the legislation that governs free personal care for the elderly. The First Minister will be aware that an independent report that was published yesterday shows that half of Scotland's councils still have queues for assessment for free personal care. He will also be aware that, in the past few months, the Scottish Conservatives have exposed the scandal that some pensioners have been charged wrongfully for meal preparation. Does the First Minister accept that the guidance that was issued to local authorities has been a farce? Can he tell me who is to blame for that?

The Conservatives may be interested in political blame, but people in Scotland are interested in the quality of this important service. People in Scotland are interested not only in the consistent implementation of the free personal care policy in relation to food preparation but in the quality of service provision for elderly people in Scotland who are, for example, in care homes. That is precisely why we have a policy of free personal care, which is fully costed and implemented, and why we insist on consistent implementation in relation to food preparation and the delivery of services—the report to which Miss Goldie referred that was published yesterday made it clear that everyone in Scotland who has been assessed as requiring a service is receiving it. That is also precisely why we insist on the quality of accommodation and facilities for older people who are, for example, in care homes being inspected properly, with any problems rectified, through the work of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care.

That is a comprehensive approach to care provision and those are significant steps forward in 21st century Scotland. The Conservatives may wish to get involved in some kind of culture of political blame for what happened in the past but, frankly, if we get into that, they could have very red faces indeed.

It is all very well for the First Minister to tell us that bits of the free personal care policy are working well, but if a pilot told him that bits of a plane were working well, would he still go up in it? The First Minister attempts to ignore the bits that are not working well, which is entirely predictable. The bottom line is that, in 2001, the Parliament passed legislation that entitled our older people to free personal care but, six years later, hundreds of them are still waiting for assessment for care and thousands more have been robbed of an estimated £20 million, as a result of being charged for services that should have been free. How does the First Minister propose to ensure that those pensioners are reimbursed fully and swiftly?

Annabel Goldie misrepresents the situation. The reality is that free personal care for elderly people in Scotland is one of the successes of the Parliament and the devolved Government. Throughout Scotland, thousands of people benefit from the provision of free care, by which I mean not only the elderly people who have been assessed as needing care and who benefit immediately from the provision, but all their families, who benefit because that cost is no longer on them as it was during the many Conservative years. It is important that local authorities throughout Scotland implement consistently the policy of free personal care. However, at least under the devolved Government, they can afford to do so, because of the increases in public investment that the local authorities and the devolved Government have had as a result of a stable and strong economy, after the 20 years of boom and bust under the Tories. In effect, those years of boom and bust led to the cuts in elderly care and the charges that elderly people faced in the 1990s. The comparison between then and now shows that devolution is working for Scotland.

Nowhere in that was an answer to the question that I asked about the pensioners who have been robbed of resource to pay for care that should have been free but was not. How does the First Minister propose to ensure that those pensioners are reimbursed fully and swiftly?

The fact remains that the situation is symptomatic of the rule of the Liberal-Labour pact, which promises everything but does not deliver. Six years on from the introduction of the legislation on free personal care, there are deficiencies in the implementation. On such a simple issue, in which pensioners—who could be more vulnerable?—were robbed of money to pay for services that they should have got free, we have no answer and no leadership from the First Minister as to what is to happen to them. He can blame whom he likes, but is it not the truth that the Lib-Lab pact wants to blur responsibility so that it can take the credit for everything and the blame for nothing?

The reality is that the free personal care policy and its implementation throughout Scotland have been a success for thousands of Scottish pensioners who have benefited from it. As a result of policies that the Parliament has agreed to and the way in which those policies have been implemented, those pensioners and their families have a quality of life that they could never have imagined under the Conservatives.

Scotland's pensioners have not been robbed of anything; rather, the free personal care policy has supported them. That support makes a difference to them day in, day out. We will continue to defend and promote the free personal care policy and ensure that the local authorities, which are responsible for implementing it, implement it more consistently in the years to come. They will do so with our full backing and the resources that they identified as being necessary when the policy was introduced.

There is one constituency supplementary, from Marilyn Livingstone.

Is the First Minister aware of the recent announcement by Inglis Allen, which is based in my constituency, that it was calling in the provisional liquidator? Some 43 jobs will be lost. The company has operated in my constituency for more than 100 years and the community will feel its loss keenly. The First Minister is aware that the printing industry in general is experiencing difficult market conditions. Will the relevant Executive departments work with key agencies in my constituency to help to secure a buyer for the company and ensure that every possible support is given to the workforce?

Obviously, we sympathise with those who are affected by such decisions. In such circumstances, we act quickly with the support of all local agencies to give people advice and assistance to get into new work or training. That policy, which has been successfully implemented elsewhere in Scotland, will be implemented in Marilyn Livingstone's Kirkcaldy constituency and the rest of Fife.

Last Friday, I participated in a meeting with Marilyn Livingstone and the local member of Parliament in which the prospect of an urban regeneration company in Kirkcaldy was discussed. I thank her for that meeting and wish the local partners well. The local community in Kirkcaldy faces real economic challenges, and the local partners should move quickly to secure an arrangement that could ensure additional private and public sector investment in the area in the future.

---

International Development

To ask the First Minister what recent representations the Scottish Executive has received about its contribution to international development. (S2F-2754)

We regularly receive representations in respect of international development, the majority of which seek advice on how to become involved in our work with Malawi or ask for funding for project ideas.

I urge the First Minister to expand and improve the Executive's programme for helping the people of Malawi. That said, will he respond to the recent BBC report that claimed that more than 30 per cent of the money for Malawi has gone on administration rather than on helping the poorest people in one of the poorest countries in the world?

Dennis Canavan will be aware that I remain committed to the idea that the Parliament's approach should be to support the United Kingdom Government's international aid and development efforts and ensure that Scotland makes a contribution to the lives of those with significant needs elsewhere in the world—in many cases, the needs of people elsewhere in the world are far more significant than ours. We have a duty and a responsibility to take such an approach, and the Parliament should be proud that it shows an interest in such matters. It should not flinch from continuing to be committed to supporting international development.

Dennis Canavan asked about a recent BBC report. Those who are responsible for that report should be ashamed of its scandalous misrepresentation of the facts about the work of the international development fund. I give members an absolute guarantee that what was said about funding for the administration of organisations in Scotland is untrue. The reality is that people in Scotland receive support for innovative projects that help people in Malawi to stand on their own two feet, develop education and training services, support Malawi's economy in a sustainable way and improve governance there, which will help it to attract more aid and develop the economy in the longer term. Those projects are the right projects for people in Scotland to undertake and we will continue to help them to achieve their aims.

Yes, but will the First Minister provide a detailed numerical critique of the 31 per cent figure that the BBC produced? Will he also respond to the claim that international development is not the responsibility of the Executive and the Scottish Parliament, and is therefore none of our business? Does he recall that Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for International Development, said in this chamber that he welcomed the involvement of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive in adding value to his department's work? Does the First Minister agree that world poverty should be the business of every member of this Parliament and every person in Scotland? After all, as members of the human race, we all have a responsibility to our fellow human beings, whether they be in Scotland, Malawi or anywhere else in the world.

Absolutely. If it were possible to understand where misrepresentations come from, it would be easier to respond to them. If there were a detailed breakdown of this fanciful claim, we—and, I am sure, all the organisations involved—would happily respond to it. I understand that the claim might include the travel costs of people from local organisations in the health, education and other sectors in Scotland going to Malawi to deliver support or to learn more about the support that they can provide. That seems to me to be a funny description of administration. However, we would welcome more detailed information from those responsible for the programme to ensure that people in Scotland receive clarification that will reassure them.

On the member's second question, I make it very clear that the Scotland Act 1998 empowers the Scottish ministers to act in assistance to the responsibilities of ministers of the Crown in the United Kingdom. Although international aid and development are clearly a responsibility of the UK Government, we in Scotland have a clear legislative opportunity to support such actions. We do so in Malawi and elsewhere in a reasonable and considered way that is not out of proportion to the rest of our activities and responsibilities. Indeed, we do it because we believe in it, and because we believe that the Parliament has a bigger role to play than simply carrying out its immediate legislative responsibilities. That approach makes Scotland a better place and I am sure that the vast majority of people in Scotland are very proud of that action and that commitment.

I watched—and was horrified by—the programme in question. For example, it did not highlight a particular project in Malawi with which I have been involved, which has received Scottish Executive funding and is doing extremely well in training people to be trainers.

Has the First Minister any idea of the percentage that is being spent on administration? Of course, any such activities undertaken in the Scottish Parliament are bound to incur more costs in the early stages. What checks and balances are being put in place to ensure that as much of the money as possible is going to the front line?

Ultimately, this issue comes down to people's commitment, will and desire to assist and to make the most of the investment. I suppose that many different definitions of administration exist. My best estimate is that those responsible for this particular misrepresentation took the widest possible definition, which is way beyond the expectations of any reasonable person. However, I would welcome clarification from them and will be happy to deal with that information if it comes forward.

The people to whom Mike Pringle has referred and the many such projects across Scotland will have had to meet set-up costs. In some cases, they will have raised money in previous years to help them in that respect; in other cases, they might have needed a bit of assistance to get going. However, in each and every case, the teachers, doctors and nurses, the people in businesses, churches, rotary clubs, sports clubs and other organisations and the other people all over Scotland who are helping with the efforts in Malawi, Uganda, Zambia, Rwanda and other countries do so because they believe in what they are doing. They get up in the morning, caring about what they are doing, not because they want to spend money on administration but because they want to change the world. That is the right attitude for Scots, and Scots everywhere should support those people in their efforts.

---

Rail Passenger Safety

To ask the First Minister, in light of the Cumbria train crash, what action it will take within its responsibilities in the interests of passenger safety. (S2F-2760)

I apologise for the length of this reply but, clearly, it is on an important and immediate issue on which I would like to give some information to the chamber. First, on behalf of all members, I express my condolences to the family of Margaret Masson, who lost her life so tragically at the weekend. Our thoughts are also with all those who were injured in the incident in Cumbria, particularly those who are still in hospital.

Railway safety is a reserved issue. However, Transport Scotland officials are actively engaged with the Department for Transport in developing safety policy. They will work with the department and the Office of Rail Regulation in taking forward any specific recommendations that arise from the derailment investigation.

The Office of Rail Regulation supports the precautionary inspection by Network Rail of the 900 sets of points across the UK network that are similar to the ones that form part of the current investigation. I am informed that, by the evening of Tuesday 27 February, all of the 200 similar sets of points on the Scottish network had been checked by Network Rail engineers and no safety concerns had been found. Although all members will welcome that information, I am sure that we would also want to insist that Network Rail continues to be vigilant in the future about the safety of the track, which is its responsibility.

I thank the First Minister for that detailed answer and echo the sentiments that he expressed in respect of the lady who lost her life and the people who were injured.

We have to await the outcome of the derailment investigation, but I want to look to the longer term. Seat belts have been mandatory for a long time in motor cars and aeroplanes. Surely a suggestion that is worthy of consideration is that three-point seat belts should be supplied on trains, particularly when new rolling stock is purchased.

I speak personally rather than necessarily on behalf of the whole Executive, although I understand that a number of ministers have strong views in support of having seat belts on trains. A very strong case can be made for the provision of seat belts on trains. I believe that any investigation into the derailment last weekend should look again at the issue, which has been looked at before, and do so positively. Even if the issue of train safety is reserved, we have responsibilities for train services and for the track in Scotland, so we will consider contributing to any debate on the issue over the months to come. In any debate on how to move forward on the issue, seat belts will have to be part of the consideration.

---

Air-gun Sales

To ask the First Minister, on the eve of the second anniversary of the fatal shooting of toddler Andrew Morton, whether the Scottish Executive considers that general air-gun sales should be banned. (S2F-2752)

Obviously, we have already discussed the issue, Presiding Officer. I reiterate the sense of shock that all of us felt at the tragic shooting of Andrew Morton. We continue to sympathise with the parents, who are with us again in the Parliament. We welcome them today.

Changes in the law will end anonymous internet and mail order sales of air-guns by outlawing any sales that are not conducted on a face-to-face basis; increase the age limit for the ownership of air weapons, yet again, to 18; and tighten the law on the indiscriminate and reckless firing of air-guns from private property. Those changes come on top of the previous change in the law that ensures that people cannot have unreasonable possession of an air-gun outwith their own private property. We welcome all those new laws. We wish to ensure that they are enforced properly by police forces across Scotland. We will also monitor the effectiveness of those new laws. As we do so, we will, of course, consider whether further measures are necessary.

I thank the First Minister for making the time yesterday to discuss the matter with me. I ask him to join me in paying tribute to the campaigning activities of Sharon McMillan and Andy Morton, the parents of Andrew Morton, and to those of Jacqueline Jack, the sister of Graeme Baxter, who was killed last April in an air-gun shooting.

Given that there have been three fatalities from air-guns in Scotland in the past three years, given that a System 3 opinion poll showed that 82 per cent of people in Scotland support a ban on air-guns, and given that statistics published last week by the Scottish Executive Justice Department show that air-gun-related crimes are at a seven-year high, will the First Minister please give hope to the families who are campaigning for a ban on air-guns by repeating the statement that he made to the Labour Party conference two years ago, when he said that it would be wrong to rule out a total ban on air-guns?

I am happy to repeat that statement. I believe that it would be wrong to rule out a total ban on air-guns. I also believe that the challenge for Scottish police forces in the immediate future is to implement and enforce the laws that were discussed and agreed with them and which have been enacted. It is time for that enforcement to happen.

The Minister for Justice and I will meet the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland this month, to ensure that police forces initially target the areas of Scotland in which there have been the most incidents. We know which parts of the country are most affected by the curse of air-guns and we will ensure that the police forces of Scotland initially target those areas, to minimise the potential for incidents caused by people who mishandle air-guns. If enforcement proves ineffective or is not as effective as we want it to be, of course I do not rule out a total ban in future.

First Minister's question time started late, so I use my discretion to take question 6.

---

Child Poverty

To ask the First Minister, in light of recent statistics, what steps are being considered to help raise children out of poverty. (S2F-2751)

We are committed to tackling child poverty. Since 1998, 100,000 Scottish children have been lifted from relative poverty, so the target to reduce child poverty by a quarter by 2005 has been exceeded. Investment in education, skills and employment will make the most significant difference in the long term. We regularly discuss with relevant United Kingdom Government departments the next steps that we can take together to help people who are still living in poverty in Scotland.

It cannot be denied that in Scotland we are on course to achieve Labour's commitment to end child poverty in a generation. However, the next stage is potentially the most difficult one: tackling the circumstances of children and families who are still in absolute poverty will be challenging. As work remains the best way of lifting whole families out of poverty, what additional measures will the First Minister take to target children in communities such as Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven, so that they can have the best possible start in life?

There has been considerable improvement in the position, partly as a result of investment in the sure start programme and partly as a result of investment in our working for families fund, which Jackie Baillie was involved in establishing. Throughout the country, the biggest change in relation to child poverty comes through having a stronger economy, investment that leads to the creation of good jobs, and investment in education and skills, to give young people a better opportunity in life. Such investment should remain our absolute priority in this Parliament through devolution. The best way of tackling poverty in Scotland in the long term is through education, skills and employment opportunities, so that families are able to stand on their own two feet, make their contribution and ensure that the next generation can go even further. That remains an absolute priority commitment for the Executive and I am certain that it will do after 3 May.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—