Plenary, 01 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, June 1, 2006

Official Report 721KB 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-2331)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister again soon.

The First Minister has said repeatedly—some might say ad nauseam—that he will take no decision on new nuclear power stations until the issue of nuclear waste has been resolved. What is the First Minister's view on how nuclear waste should be dealt with?

Having established jointly with the other devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government an expert committee to make recommendations to us all that would progress finding that long-term solution, it would be entirely wrong of me to pre-empt the expert committee's work. We expect to see its final report in July.

The First Minister will be aware that the expert committee to which he refers has now said what its preferred option is for dealing with nuclear waste—it is proposing geological disposal. The First Minister will also be aware that it specifically asked people to give their views on that proposal by Friday of last week.

I remind the First Minister that on 4 May he encouraged people to

"contribute to the consultation and the debate."—[Official Report, 4 May 2006; c 25290.]

If it is okay for the First Minister to ask others to express a view on the proposal, is it not reasonable for others to ask the First Minister what his view is, given that he is supposed to be leading the country? I know where the Scottish National Party stands. We know where the Greens and the Liberal Democrats stand. The question is: where do the First Minister and the Labour Party stand on the issue?

For the sake of absolute clarity for Ms Sturgeon and others, I repeat that we established an expert committee to make recommendations that would help us to move towards a long-term solution for nuclear waste. We did that in conjunction with the other devolved Administrations and the UK Government. That committee has not published its decisions, as Ms Sturgeon claims; it has published a draft report that it has put out to consultation. Ms Sturgeon is right that I have encouraged others to make submissions to that consultation. When the committee considers them, it will produce a final report and report to us.

It would be an absolute insult to the people on the committee, who have been given a difficult task, for any Government to pre-empt what it might recommend and tell it what to think. The committee members are the experts. They will make a recommendation and we will consider it.

It seems that can't say, won't say is becoming the First Minister's personal political philosophy. I remind the First Minister that he said a couple of weeks ago in this chamber that

"it is not beyond our wit to make a major contribution"—[Official Report, 20 April 2006; c 24830.]

to this debate. It seems that that is not quite true in his case.

Is the First Minister aware that nuclear waste disposal is a devolved issue and therefore a matter for the Parliament? Is he aware that many of the sites that would be geologically suitable for nuclear dumping are here in Scotland and would directly affect Scottish communities? When all that is added to the fact that the First Minister has based his decision on new nuclear power stations on the issue of the waste, and to the fact that there is now a recommendation on the table, is it not incredible that the First Minister is simply not prepared to give a view? I will ask the First Minister again: what is his view on the issue?

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. How often can we say it? We established an expert committee. We expect it to come up with recommendations. We will look at those recommendations and make decisions as appropriate. We are not going to pre-empt those experts who are looking at the evidence and making their recommendations by telling them what to think in advance. That might be the way of the SNP, but it will not be the way of this Government here in Scotland.

Given the number of times that I have now said that in the chamber and the number of times that Ms Sturgeon has raised that issue only to be given exactly the same answer, I find it astonishing that, in a week when people throughout Scotland are concerned about education, health, jobs, crime and other important issues, she has yet again returned to a question to which she knows the answer. The answer is that the experts will recommend, but we will then decide.

The problem is that we are all still waiting for an answer. The First Minister will not say what his view is on new nuclear power stations until a decision is made on the issue of nuclear waste, but he will not say what his view is on the issue of nuclear waste until someone else makes that decision for him. Is it not the case that if the First Minister was showing real leadership he would say that there is no satisfactory solution to the issue of waste, so all we can do is choose the least bad option and, in those circumstances, the absolutely last thing that we should ever do is contemplate new nuclear power stations that will produce more filthy waste for future generations to deal with?

No. The problem is that Ms Sturgeon has nothing to say about education, health, crime, jobs or any other issue in Scotland. That is the reason why she is not in Government in Scotland and is never likely to be so.

The position on nuclear power and on nuclear waste is crystal clear. Our decision will be based on expert evidence and on the advice of those whom we have asked to advise us. We will properly consider the issue of waste with the other Administrations in the United Kingdom. We commissioned a joint expert group and we will listen to its views jointly. If we ever need to consider an application for a new nuclear power station in Scotland, we will consider it on the basis of that outcome. That is the right way for us to conduct ourselves and it is far better than pre-empting expert advice simply because the SNP passed a policy on nuclear power at some point in the past but passed no policies on anything else.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2332)

We will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland. I can assure Miss Goldie that those discussions will not include, until July or later, any report on nuclear waste management.

Well, some of us can come to a view on these things, but there you go.

Does the First Minister think it appropriate that an individual who, according to a newspaper report today, has been charged with murder and released on bail and tagged is allowed to go on holiday to Bulgaria?

Miss Goldie will understand that it is not possible—it certainly would not be appropriate—for me to pass comment on a specific case that is still in front of the courts. However, on the general issue, I state clearly that those who are deemed to be dangerous enough to be either remanded in custody or tagged should obviously remain under supervision in that way for the course of the period leading up to their trial. It is not possible for me to comment on individual cases, but I regard that as an important principle in our duty to ensure the safety of the public and in the duty of the judiciary and others to ensure that public safety comes first. That is precisely why we are amending the current procedures on bail with a bill that is before the Parliament to ensure their more consistent and clearer application in future.

This latest outrage is simply another chapter in the depressing chronicle of the crumbling Scottish criminal justice system. The fact is that more murderers are being freed on bail because Labour was hellbent on making Scotland compliant with the European convention on human rights. More prisoners are also being released early from jail and going on to commit more crime because of Labour's failure to scrap automatic early release. The First Minister may have talked big on those issues for years, but nothing has actually been done. Can he explain why, while this mayhem is reigning, his Executive has prioritised criminalising non-existent fur farms and the docking of working dogs' tails?

I hope that we will have a higher quality of debate on these important issues. I also hope that the Parliament will agree to the important changes that are required to measures that have at least some grounding in the years when the party for which Miss Goldie advocated support so vocally was in Government in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We know that automatic early release was introduced by a Conservative Government in the 1990s.

We in the devolved Government are absolutely determined to end automatic unconditional early release in Scotland. That measure will be included in the sentencing bill that will be introduced this year. We know that the Conservatives supported the ECHR during all the years when they were in Government, but we also know that we need to change the laws and guidance on bail here in Scotland. Those provisions are now before the Parliament, in the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, and they will be implemented if the Parliament agrees to them. We will tighten the law on bail and ensure that it is more consistently applied throughout Scotland.

We also know that we have a track record that proves that when we say we are going to make changes, we make a difference. We know that the court reforms that have already been introduced in the High Court have led to considerable amounts of time being saved by witnesses who might have been called but who no longer have to be called. We know that a considerable number of cases have not been adjourned but have been heard on the day on which they were called, which is to the advantage not only of victims and witnesses but of people outside the Parliament, who need to have more confidence in our court system. Because those reforms worked, we will press ahead with the others, despite some conservative voices in the wings, who will not stand in our way.

Before the First Minister rushes to blame the Conservative party for automatic early release, I remind him that Conservatives put legislation on the statute book nearly 10 years ago to end the policy. Unbelievably, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party have opposed scrapping automatic early release on four separate occasions in the Parliament. I hear moans and groans from Labour and Liberal Democrat members, but they should tell that to the victims of crimes that were committed by people who were automatically released early from prison. Will the First Minister give a categorical assurance today that automatic early release for all prisoners—regardless of their crime and whether they are serving short or long sentences—will be abolished?

I have given the commitment to abolish automatic unconditional early release on a number of occasions in the chamber. We said at the time that we would ensure that we obtained expert advice from a sentencing commission on the mechanism for achieving that. We established the commission, which has reported. Cabinet discussed the matter yesterday and will do so again in the next fortnight. In the sentencing bill that will come before the Parliament, we will make very clear that the system will be abolished and replaced. That is the right thing to do for Scotland. I accept absolutely our responsibility as the current Government of Scotland to abolish automatic unconditional early release. I just wish that Miss Goldie accepted her responsibility for the matter, because the Conservative party introduced it in the first place.

Margaret Jamieson has a question on a related constituency issue.

Does the First Minister share the astonishment of the family of Bryan Drummond on hearing that a youth charged with Bryan's murder has had his request to have his tag removed granted at Kilmarnock sheriff court, to allow him to go on holiday? Will the First Minister confirm that the Executive will do more to ensure that the rights of victims and their families come first? Will he ask the Lord Advocate to meet me urgently, as I requested earlier this week?

I am sure that the request will be granted. I stress again that I cannot comment on the individual circumstances of the case. I have made my view on the consistent application of bail procedures, tagging and remand in Scotland very clear. We need to ensure that public safety always comes first. I say to Margaret Jamieson—if it helps at this time—that the area procurator fiscal for Ayrshire has been asked to review all the circumstances and to provide a report on the case. The Crown is currently considering more generally whether guidance is sufficiently robust in such cases.

Subject to Parliament passing the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill later this year, which will tighten the law on bail, the Lord Advocate will ensure that new guidance is put in place that will secure the implementation of those new provisions and their more consistent application across Scotland. There will be no doubt in the minds of judges of the High Court or the lower courts that that guidance and those rules must be applied.

---

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2337)

I expect to meet the chancellor soon.

When the First Minister meets Gordon Brown, could he ask him if he is finished with the book that I lent him about how to support your party leader and build mutual respect among your colleagues? I need to lend it to somebody else.

I would like to turn the First Minister's attention to a more serious and important matter. Yesterday, a member's bill was lodged that seeks to take rail passenger services in Scotland back into public ownership. As the First Minister knows, under the powers that were conferred on it by the Railways Act 2005, the Scottish Executive can insist on a publicly owned not-for-profit train operation. Does the First Minister agree that a public rail service whose revenues are reinvested in that service would be more efficient than a system in which billions of pounds pour out of the trains and into the pockets of private rail companies?

I wish Colin Fox all the best in the weeks ahead. Peter Peacock says that he is certainly going to need it. Colin Fox has my sympathy and support. [Laughter.] I knew that that would get members going.

I do not agree that we should waste public resources on renationalising the railways in Scotland. We need to ensure that we have the right contracts for the services on the railways in Scotland—the new contract is an improvement on the old one and services are improving as a result of investment in rolling stock and new track. Also, we should use scarce public resources to invest in new track and ensure that we either reopen vital old routes or establish new ones. I am delighted that we have announced this week that we hope to be able to proceed with the route from Airdrie to Bathgate, which will open up that part of central Scotland for work and leisure in the years ahead.

I know that the First Minister will take in good spirit the fact that I am not at all grateful for his support.

The subsidy that we give to private train companies is now three times the level that was given when the service was publicly owned. More than 70 per cent of Scots want trains to be run for the benefit of passengers, not shareholders in private companies.

Does the First Minister agree that rail privatisation has been a disaster? It is inefficient, uneconomic and incapable of providing sustainable, expanded and affordable services or value for money in terms of the scarce public resources that the First Minister mentioned. Should the First Minister not be putting his full weight behind the public not-for-profit option? Is that not what the people of Scotland want him to do?

I welcome Colin Fox's support—if that was what it was—for our increased levels of investment in rail services. I believe absolutely that that increased level of investment is necessary to ensure that we have the conditions that Scotland's economy needs to grow and that people in Scotland and elsewhere need to move around our country more effectively. In addition, I think that it is important that we ensure that the service continues to expand and develop in the way that we have managed to achieve in recent years.

I agree with Colin Fox that the way in which rail privatisation was implemented by the Tories was a disaster in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, this Government is part of the solution, not part of the problem. We are ensuring that there is new investment in rail services, new investment in rail infrastructure and, eventually, a better service for all customers and passengers.

I bring to the First Minister's attention the report that was commissioned by Scottish Enterprise and that was published this week, which shows that the real level of unemployment in Scotland, after nine years of Labour Government, is 250,000 people. In the light of that Scottish Enterprise-inspired report, will the First Minister now tell us when we will see the employability strategy that has been long promised by the Executive and when he will publish proposals for dealing with the 35,000 16 to 19-year-olds in Scotland who are not in employment, education or training?

I know that Alex Neil has made a career out of distorting reports and presentations by others and, at times, calling disgracefully for people to resign as a result, but I have to say that he paints an absolutely false picture of the Scottish economy. We know not only that unemployment has dropped radically but, critically, that employment in Scotland—Mr Neil cannot deny the statistics—is at its highest ever level, that it is higher than in any of the other nations of the United Kingdom and that it is among the very highest in Europe. Any decent nationalist party anywhere else in the world would welcome that statistic and be pleased about it. Only the Scottish National Party could be upset, because it contradicts its central thesis that Scotland cannot prosper under the current conditions.

We hope to publish sometime this month the employability strategy and the strategy to deal with those 16 to 19-year-olds who are currently NEET. If we do so, I hope that Alex Neil will support those strategies, not distort them.

---

Smoking Ban (Compliance)

To ask the First Minister whether there has been effective compliance with the smoking ban in its first two months. (S2F-2333)

Reports received so far from local authorities indicate that levels of compliance with the ban on smoking in enclosed public places are extremely high. We intend to publish the reports that we have received in summary and, I think, in detailed form. I am grateful to all Scots—smokers and non-smokers—for their assistance in making the new law work effectively in these early weeks.

I look forward to seeing the published evidence. People certainly feel that the ban is working well. I am sure that the First Minister will be pleased to hear that members of this Parliament, including me, have greatly reduced their nicotine intake since the ban was introduced, and I am sure that that reduction is reflected across the general public.

Is he aware that smokers realise the risks and are aware of the damage to their health from the effects of smoking and that the majority of smokers want to stop? What further measures will the Scottish Executive take to assist more people to stop, particularly by targeting assistance at women and expectant mothers?

First of all, I congratulate Cathie Craigie, if she has indeed managed to reduce the number of cigarettes that she smokes every day. We may hold her to that in the months ahead. I should also say that we are absolutely committed not simply to legislating to restrict the opportunities for people to smoke but, more important, to assisting people, from the very young to the very old, to reduce their nicotine intake or to stop smoking altogether. Many schemes run by our health service, the voluntary sector and elsewhere are being successful in achieving that. I hope that many other people will take up those schemes in the months and years ahead and that, as a result, Scotland will be a healthier country.

Will the First Minister have discussions with the UK Government about similar legislation in the English jurisdiction? In border areas there is some evidence of an imbalance in cross-border trade, because of smokers moving to the English jurisdiction to take temporary advantage of the conditions that exist there.

I am obviously delighted that our colleagues in the Westminster Parliament have agreed to follow the example set here in Scotland by implementing similar legislation in England and elsewhere. I know from my recent visit that there is considerable pressure for such legislation in Northern Ireland too, and I am delighted that progress will also be made on that.

On trade, I shall say what I said on many occasions in advance of the ban coming into play in March. The number of people who do not smoke in our country, or who want to smoke less than they currently do, far outweighs the number of people who smoke. The opportunities created for people in the trade by no-smoking premises therefore far outweigh the dangers of people moving to other premises to smoke. I hope that people who trade in the border area—even before the new legislation is in place south of the border—will see this as an opportunity and will try to attract custom north of the border from south of the border rather than let it all go in the other direction.

---

Scotland-Northern Ireland Co-operation

To ask the First Minister whether he discussed the potential for co-operation between Scotland and Northern Ireland during his recent visit to Belfast. (S2F-2339)

Yes, I did. I indicated to the Northern Ireland Assembly that we wish to develop further co-operation with it in the future. I discussed areas of co-operation with senior members of the Assembly and with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain.

Given that there is considerable support on both sides of the Irish sea for a programme of tripartite co-operation between Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, with the possibility of funding under the European Union co-operation objective, will the Scottish Executive work with the Irish Government, the United Kingdom Government and the Northern Ireland Executive—when it is, I hope, re-established—to make such a programme a reality? It would have significant social, economic and cultural benefits. Some projects might also encourage a greater degree of mutual understanding and respect between people of different faiths and traditions in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

I agree with both Dennis Canavan's objective and his rationale in respect of the benefits that achievement of his objective would bring. I believe that close co-operation will enhance mutual understanding and that such a programme could provide practical economic and social benefits, if an appropriate programme can be put in place. I know that officials in the different Governments are currently discussing such a programme. We have also recently offered—through Mr Canavan's good offices—to organise a meeting between ministers here and ministers in both the north of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I hope that it will therefore be possible for us to take the matter forward in the months ahead and to secure such a programme, which would benefit all of us involved.

---

Carers

To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Executive has made on improving recognition of the work of carers. (S2F-2338)

We recognise the importance of carers to Scottish society and to individual families, for a variety of reasons. Our recent response to the care 21 report "The Future of Unpaid Care in Scotland" set out our priorities for improving the support and recognition of carers. Those include requiring national health service boards to develop local strategies to identify carers and help them to access the support that they need in their caring role.

I am aware that the Executive has been doing some good things. However, the problem with carers is that they are so diverse. They are individuals, and they range from young carers to old people. They are involved with the health service, local authorities, social work departments and many excellent voluntary organisations that try to co-ordinate them. Will the First Minister ensure that the Executive adopts a co-ordinated attitude to carers to promote their welfare and that a minister is placed in charge of that task and ensures that the programme works?

I am certainly keen to do all that I can to ensure ministerial co-ordination, ministerial leadership and appropriate co-ordination of the many agencies involved. Those include not only—as I mentioned—the health boards, which need to develop local strategies to make the system work at the level closest to the citizens themselves and to their families, but local authorities and the many voluntary bodies that do such an outstanding job supporting carers. They advocate Government initiatives that give further support to carers and provide support and respite to individual carers in their local communities. That is an essential role for the voluntary sector as well as an important strategic role for local authorities and health boards.

The First Minister will be aware that a task group was established to prepare the care 21 report on behalf of the Scottish Executive. Central to the Executive's response to the report's recommendations is the establishment of another task group to consider how services should be managed. The First Minister's response to Donald Gorrie's question indicates that he understands the scale of the problem, but does he understand that there is immense concern because so much talk is going on about the proposals but there is so little action? Does he realise that people are becoming frustrated in relation to the Government's support for carers? Will the First Minister pledge today that he will ensure that the wise words of the Executive response to the care 21 report are translated into a concrete programme of action to bring about a decisive improvement in the support for young carers in Scotland?

It is very important to have a programme of action, but it is also important for that programme to be developed in liaison with the carers themselves and the many bodies that provide the support that carers require. As I said earlier, those bodies include both public sector bodies and, crucially, organisations in the voluntary sector that play such a great role in providing quality support and assistance to carers on carers' own terms. A programme of action is important, but it is also important that it is properly put in place in consultation with those who are most affected. That is what we will seek to achieve.

Before I suspend the meeting, I wish to advise the chamber that I received an emergency question this morning from David Davidson on the implications of the illness of the Lord President, Lord Hamilton. I have decided that, under rule 13.8.2 of the standing orders, I will take the question at the start of our afternoon business at 2.15 pm. In order to protect the remainder of today's business, I have also decided to allow a limited opportunity for supplementary questions. Decision time will still be at 5 pm.

The question is set out in a revised section A of the Business Bulletin, which has been emailed to all members. Copies of the revised section are also available at the back of the chamber.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—