Plenary, 03 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, February 3, 2005

Official Report 756KB 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 will be discussed. (S2F-1408)

I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting with the Prime Minister.

I draw the First Minister's attention to last year's annual report from the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, which said that the number of persistent young offenders in Scotland was too high and that the Government's aim was to cut it by 10 per cent. The latest report, which, after several months' delay, has been published in the past hour, shows that the number of persistent young offenders has not come down, but gone up. I ask the First Minister why.

The reasons were explained in November, when the figure for persistent young offenders was first put into the public domain. The figure that is now used is far more accurate, which is a good thing for the system, because it is important that we have agreement with all the agencies that are involved, that we know the scale of the challenge and that we have the right policies in place to deal with that challenge, such as youth courts, fast-track children's hearings, the increase in social work provision and the many other measures that will undoubtedly make a difference in tackling persistent young offenders.

The First Minister can try as hard as he likes to bamboozle the public on the figures that are published in the report, but he cannot change the facts. Is he aware that, even using the old definition, the number of persistent young offenders has gone up by 5 per cent? We will not find that in the report that was published today, so how do we know? We know because a letter that has been released under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 has it in black and white. The reality is that youth offending is up under the old definition and the new definition; it is up under any definition. Does not that add up to the reality that, despite repeated promises and endless targets, the First Minister is simply failing to get to grips with the problem of youth crime?

Absolutely not. For those who oppose the measures that we have put in place to tackle youth crime and persistent youth offending to say that not enough is being done is sheer hypocrisy. If the Scottish National Party's policies were being implemented, nothing would be being done about persistent young offenders or youth crime in Scotland. The reality is that we need to do a number of things to tackle persistent youth offending in Scotland. We need a system that tackles persistent young offenders more toughly than they have been tackled for 20 or more years, ensures that they learn the error of their ways, directs them to the difference between right and wrong and punishes those who need to be punished. We also need a system that catches youngsters at a much earlier stage. The document that Nicola Sturgeon quoted also points out that the number of working days to progress a referral to a hearing decision has been cut by 20 days, and that for non-offences—the cases that can sometimes lead to youngsters offending—there has been a reduction of 17 days.

We need to tackle persistent young offenders who are causing problems in our communities. That is why we have been passing laws while the SNP has been voting against them. We must ensure that we catch youngsters earlier and make early interventions to ensure that they are put on the straight and narrow before they get into more trouble.

Year after year, we hear what needs to be done, but the facts say that the Scottish Executive is failing. When will the First Minister stop blustering and face up to those facts? Youth offending is up by 13 per cent. Even on the most generous interpretation, serious and persistent youth offending is up by 5 per cent. The overall number of referrals to children's panels is at an all-time high. One in 20 kids in Scotland now ends up before a children's panel. Is it not the case that the Government's policies for tackling youth crime are manifestly failing?

Today, on the day that the report was published, the chief reporter to the children's panel has tendered his resignation. What responsibility does the First Minister take for that indictment of the Scottish Executive's policies on youth crime?

Despite the persistent and consistent opposition of the Scottish National Party, and sometimes the Scottish Conservatives, we take our responsibility very seriously indeed. That is why we have brought in new laws, increased budgets and have more social workers in Scotland than ever before. That is why more people are going to be working in the children's hearings system than ever before. In addition to the main hearings system, we now have fast-track hearings and youth courts. That is why we passed the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which was opposed tooth and nail by the Scottish National Party when it was going through the parliamentary process. That is why we have parental orders, control orders and all the other things that are now in the system and are making a difference. We are acting, we are going to act more and we are going to deliver on persistent young offenders.

Does it ever cross the First Minister's mind that the reason why other people oppose some of his policies is that the facts say that they are simply not working? Youth crime is going up and the Government's target for cutting it is not being met year after year. When is the First Minister going to stop talking and making promise after promise, start doing something about the appalling record and finally get to grips with the problem of youth crime that destroys so many of our communities?

I hesitate to repeat the points that I have just made, but they should be repeated for the record.

We have put in place the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, and that was opposed by the Scottish National Party. We have taken action on parenting, and that was opposed by the Scottish National Party. There has been action on fast-track hearings, youth courts, more social workers, and more people working in the children's hearings system. All that would not have happened if the Scottish National Party had been in Government.

Plenty of statistics and documents have been waved around, but there has not been one alternative policy from the Scottish National Party. We have taken real action on youth crime and persistent youth offending to stop young people getting into the cycle of offending in the first place, and to ensure that they have better opportunities in life and a real chance for a life on the straight and narrow.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1409)

Some very interesting issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet and they will be agreed on Monday.

I am sure that the First Minister's colleagues cannot wait. Perhaps they might like to discuss the issue of drug abuse in Scotland. This morning, people will have read reports in certain newspapers of the conclusions of a Scottish Executive-funded research report that suggested that, for some people, heroin use is harmless. I know that it is a long report and that the subject is complex, but does the First Minister agree that such headlines are not in the least bit helpful when it comes to tackling the scourge of drug abuse in our society? Will he state unequivocally that the use of heroin, even once in a while, is never all right?

It is my understanding that the word "harmless" is not used in the report, but I want to be absolutely clear that any use of heroin is unacceptable, which is why that drug is illegal in Scotland today. I also want to be very clear that while we need to research how to deal with the problem, the scientific or other research that exists is not necessarily the same as the policies of this devolved Government or the attitude that we take towards heroin or other banned substances. I oppose any use of heroin. I condemn it and I want us to take a firm stand and send a very clear signal that that is the case.

I very much welcome the First Minister's comments on the subject, as I am sure will other members of Parliament and the country as a whole. However, is it any wonder that people are somewhat confused about policy on the whole issue of drugs and drug abuse? In his answer, the First Minister spoke about the importance of research in driving policy. Well, here is an example. The Department of Health in England and Wales has just instigated a review of the links between the use of cannabis and schizophrenia, yet the Labour Government's downgrading of cannabis from a class B to a class C drug sends out exactly the opposite message about the acceptability of that drug. Given the First Minister's support for being driven by research in policy conclusions, will he agree that it was irresponsible of the Westminster Government to reclassify cannabis without knowing the full facts?

Mr McLetchie will be aware that here in Scotland we maintain a very consistent position on cannabis and on the need for our police authorities in Scotland to tackle the use as well as the sale of cannabis. That remains the position. However, I also think that it is absolutely right that we, as the Government in Scotland, and the United Kingdom Government focus more and more resources on tackling the more serious drugs and those drugs that are more directly linked to organised crime. That is just one of the reasons why yesterday the Parliament supported the UK Parliament's Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which will ensure that we can not only tackle the drug barons and the organised criminals more effectively in the future, but regulate the private security industry, which many suspect might well be connected to the drugs trade.

Of course, the First Minister and the Scottish Executive had an opportunity to regulate the private security industry four years ago, but failed to take that opportunity. That is the fact of the matter.

I was interested in what the First Minister had to say about policing and prosecution in relation to the use of cannabis. If the policy is still the same, why has there been a downward classification of the drug? What is the point of that, if the Executive is pursuing the same policy on the ground? Many people suspect that the Executive is not doing that. The First Minister and the Executive have a clear responsibility to uphold the law and to protect the health of the public. In my view, that means giving out a message of zero tolerance. However, the Executive is sending out mixed messages on its own website by providing advice to people on how to use and conceal drugs safely. When it comes to drugs policy, the First Minister and the Scottish Executive cannot have it both ways. Either they have a zero tolerance approach that bears down on the use of drugs, or they have a policy such as the one on their website, which tells people to know the score. Which side is the First Minister on when it comes to that fundamental position?

Oh, I am very happy to talk about sides. First, I am on the side of truth and accurate information—[Interruption.]

Order.

I am not on the side of misinformation and distortion. What Mr McLetchie said is simply not true. He might well suspect that Scotland's chief constables are not telling the truth when they say that their attitude to pursuing cannabis users has not changed, but if he does suspect and believe that, he should produce the proof that backs up his assertion, because that is what he just claimed. He might well suspect that there are certain items on a website that is provided for children, or he might genuinely believe that, but if he does—and I am not sure that he does and that he is not just distorting things—he is wrong again.

That information is for parents, so that parents, who need to take more responsibility for these matters, can recognise the tools that children use when they are using drugs. If they can recognise them, parents can take action themselves. There are many parents who have never taken drugs and who would not know what children were doing if they were taking drugs. With information, they can spot those elements in their home or elsewhere and then help us to take action in the home, where part of the responsibility lies.

I assure Mr McLetchie that, after yesterday's vote in the Parliament, I will not take any lectures from the Scottish Conservatives or the Scottish National Party on tackling crime, organised crime, drugs or disorder in our streets. Yesterday afternoon we saw that it is no longer just a case of the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish nationalists being soft on crime; they are prepared to bypass laws that might actually tackle it too, and for that they should be ashamed.

Will the First Minister agree to revisit at the next meeting of the Cabinet the policy proposal by his Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport to close the dedicated tourism convention bureau in Dundee, which has brought millions of pounds into the local economy in Dundee and Angus? Will he personally intervene in the matter and speak to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport and VisitScotland to ensure that that good asset for the city can continue?

I am not aware of the specific example that Shona Robison cites, so I will not comment directly on it, but I am happy to ensure that she receives information. I would be stunned if there were anything other than a significant improvement in the marketing of Dundee and the rest of Scotland, given the huge increase in resources that has been allocated to VisitScotland and other agencies to promote Scottish tourism and local tourism in this country, and given the widespread support, including from the SNP, for the restructuring of our tourism industry. I hope that there is recognition in the Parliament of the success of our tourism industry, which has recovered better than almost any other tourism industry in the western world from the crises of foot-and-mouth disease and the disaster in New York on 11 September 2001.

---

Ferry Services

To ask the First Minister whether, in light of the Parliament's decision on the tendering of ferry services on 8 December 2004, the Scottish Executive will ensure that Caledonian MacBrayne is exempt from tendering for these services and is maintained as a publicly owned service. (S2F-1423)

We shall remain within the law, but further discussions are taking place between the Executive and the European Commission, and Mr Stephen will report back to Parliament on the issue as soon as possible. Our objective remains the long-term security and quality of ferry services, which are vital for our Scottish island communities.

The First Minister might not have signed the 1992 regulation that he hides behind as being the law, but will he confirm that he is signed up to the ideology? I have no objection to subsidising public services, jobs and decent terms and conditions, but I do object to subsidising the profits of companies that cut wages, pensions, jobs and services and go offshore to avoid national insurance and to paying more for the process of tendering. Will the First Minister tell me when he will publish the costs of tendering, and will he state that he will put passengers, communities and workers before his right-wing ideology; that he will put communities, passengers, workers, trade unions and public services before private profit; and that he will put the democratic will of those people and the Parliament before the ideology of privatisation, the European Commission and his neo-liberal masters in Westminster?

What a shocking thing to say about me, and I think that my Liberal Democrat colleagues might be concerned about the description of the current Westminster Government as neo-liberal. Many of us might also question Carolyn Leckie's interest in the law, given some of her recent exploits.

As someone who grew up on an island that depended on its ferry services, I know only too well the importance of Scotland's ferry services to the communities that they serve. I also know only too well about the hard work and commitment of the staff of Caledonian MacBrayne in delivering the ferry services that they currently deliver in Scotland. Our discussions with the European Commission will continue. We will stay within the law, but we will do all that we can to ensure that whatever process is put in place is a process that protects a high-quality workforce and protects services that are vital for Scotland's passengers, for local people and for tourists.

I would encourage the First Minister to break unjust laws, as I do. Let me be direct. Will the First Minister publish the legal opinion on the cost of tendering? Yes or no? Will he stand up to the European Commission and to the ideology of privatisation? Yes or no? Will he stand up for workers, communities and the will of the Parliament? Yes or no? Will he meet the members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers who are lobbying the Parliament today? Yes or no?

That is four questions, Ms Leckie.

Will he guarantee the terms and conditions, pensions and jobs of CalMac workers? Yes or no? Will he show some mettle—

That is about six questions, Ms Leckie.

I know that direct questions can sometimes be a wee bit of a problem, so I have brought some visual aids: will it be "Yes" or "No"?

Maybe. However, we must be serious, Presiding Officer, because the issue is serious and requires our full attention.

Serious discussions need to take place with the European Commission and serious attention needs to be paid to any tendering process that might take place. Serious action also needs to be taken by ministers, not only to protect the local communities involved but to ensure that, as far as possible, safeguards are put in place for those who work for what is a very important Scottish company. The Executive intends to take the matter seriously. Mr Stephen's discussions with the Commission will continue and he will make a statement to Parliament in due course.

The First Minister said that the tendering process is required by law, but neither he nor the Minister for Transport has published any evidence to substantiate that assertion, yet it is an assertion that will determine the fate of the CalMac workers.

Does the First Minister believe that the Minister for Transport was being disingenuous in citing the comparison of Spain? Although the Spanish company, Transmed Shipping, was the subject of an adverse ruling, it suffered not one penny by way of a fine. Indeed, no cost whatever has been paid by Transmed or Spain; no loss of service—

Question, please.

Spain was given 12 months after the ruling in which to comply. Therefore—

Question.

The scare story that the law will be broken if we do not tender is just that—a scare story with no evidence whatever behind it.

There is a fairly perverse logic in insisting that the families of those who work for CalMac and the local people who live on our island communities should face 12 months of uncertainty simply to make a political point, as Fergus Ewing seems to suggest they should. That would be entirely the wrong course of action to take.

The right course of action is to secure the best possible outcome for the island communities that are served by the ferries and for those who currently work—and work very well—for Caledonian MacBrayne. That is the responsible and right way in which to conduct ourselves in the situation.

To take risks with people's jobs and conditions, as Mr Ewing has consistently asked us to do, and—if there were to be a tendering process—to risk the possibility of the contract being broken up into individual contracts for individual services would endanger the lifeline services to our most vulnerable island communities. Mr Ewing might want that to happen, or at least might want to have that possibility on the table at the Commission, but we do not. We will not allow that to happen. We will continue to take the issue seriously. We will not make political points. Ultimately, we will secure the services for the future.

As the First Minister knows, we have been locked into this tendering process for some five years. I know that he is fully aware of and appreciates the uncertainty that the situation is causing for the communities that Caledonian MacBrayne serves and those who work for the company.

Is Scotland the only European Union country that is going through this process? If that is not the case, can the First Minister detail how other EU countries are handling their subsidised ferry services?

Mr Ewing gave us an example of another European country that was forced to comply with the legislation. In the process, that country took the risk of its contractual arrangements being determined by the European Commission.

I congratulate Alasdair Morrison on insisting at all times that, should there have to be a tender for the services, it must encompass all the existing services to ensure that lifeline services are placed in the most secure position possible. The irresponsible suggestions from others that we should transfer responsibility to others by not taking responsibility ourselves might be consistent with the approach that they take on other issues, but they are wrong, because the best way to deal with the matter is to take it seriously and to stay within the law, but to push for the best possible outcome for Scotland.

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

---

Terrorism (House Arrests)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive envisages that the Home Office's proposed powers of house arrest of terror suspects will operate in Scotland. (S2F-1424)

The Home Office is currently developing its new proposals to combat terrorism. Of course, national security is a reserved responsibility of the UK Government.

In the light of the recent case of prisoner C, who was released from Woodhill prison without charge, does the First Minister agree that it would be unacceptable in Scotland for someone to be incarcerated without charge and without recourse to the courts to determine guilt? Does he agree that it would never be acceptable for a Government minister acting alone, on his or her discretion, to decide to imprison an individual, and that that would be contrary and foreign to the core principles of justice in Scotland?

I do not want to get drawn into speculation, but my understanding of the proposals that were put into the public domain last week is that they include an appeals process, which might deal with some of Mr Purvis's concerns. We are involved in discussions only to the extent that we want to protect the positions of Scots law, the Scottish ministers and the Parliament. National security is reserved to the UK Government, and it is right and proper that it should put the proposals into the public domain and that they should be scrutinised by Parliament in the correct way. I am sure that that will happen and that most parties that are represented in the chamber will be able to comment on the proposals.

---

Shipbuilding

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to support the shipbuilding industry on the lower Clyde. (S2F-1410)

We have in place a Scottish shipbuilding strategy and a marine industry steering group, both of which address the issues facing Scottish shipbuilders and, through the enterprise agencies, offer Scottish shipbuilders—like other industries—appropriate business support. Scottish ministers and Executive officials are in regular contact with UK ministers to support and promote Scottish shipbuilding interests, including those on the lower Clyde.

The First Minister will be aware that Ferguson Shipbuilders of Port Glasgow faces a critical situation in the immediate future. He will also be aware of concerns expressed by the yard that in the past six months £80 million-worth of Government contracts has been lost directly or indirectly to Poland. How do the Governments of France, Germany, Holland, Italy and Spain manage to place their shipbuilding contracts with indigenous yards? Is he satisfied that Ferguson's is being asked to tender for Scottish Executive work against fair competition? Why cannot a Scottish fishery protection vessel—a little navy boat to the rest of us—be classed as a grey hull, with the consequent tender benefits to our own shipbuilding industry?

Because our fishery protection vessels do not include naval personnel and do not have armaments on board, which are a clear part of the definition used by the European Commission. If there is evidence that countries in the European Union are diverting or awarding inside their own countries contracts that are not for naval shipbuilding or shipbuilding that has a naval content, I, along with everyone else, would be interested to see it. We keep the matter under constant review. We are constantly in discussion with the UK Government about the best way to promote, protect and enhance the opportunities that are available to Scottish shipbuilding interests, and we will continue to take that approach.

Does the First Minister agree that Ferguson's in Port Glasgow in my constituency is an important yard to the local economy? In an area of population decline, we cannot allow it to close. I stress that the shop stewards, the management and the workforce are not looking for a handout. They do not want charity; they want contracts for ships. Will the First Minister assure me that he and Ross Finnie will give the yard a fair go, as far as a share of state contracts is concerned, because the workers deserve no less?

Of course Ferguson's, like other Scottish shipbuilders and yards, is treated fairly by Scottish ministers. The objective has to be not just to treat them fairly, but to ensure that they are well placed to win orders and contracts. That is why we have a shipbuilding strategy in place and why we have a steering group, on which Ferguson's, along with other interests, is represented. That is why we have constant dialogue with the industry, the enterprise agencies and the UK Government to promote Scottish shipbuilding interests. I am sure that if we can take forward any initiatives or ideas from those discussions, we will certainly do so.

By winning many orders from the private and public sectors, Ferguson's has proved that it can compete and can win an array of satisfied customers such as Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd. In the current climate, what confidence does the First Minister have that Polish state aid meets EU rules?

Of course, we have been looking into the matter, but we have been unable to uncover evidence that the Polish decisions break EU rules. It has been suggested that other countries throughout the European Union are awarding contracts in their countries for the use of boats without a naval content. If that is the case, I would welcome evidence of it, because we could use it in our discussions. It is important that we ensure not only that our shipyards are competitive and can compete for the contracts, but that they can get the contracts in the first place. I say with all due respect to Mr Mather that pulling Scotland out of NATO and ensuring that we are no longer part of the United Kingdom and its defence contracts would not benefit Ferguson's, or any other Scottish shipyard, in any way.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you clarify the criteria for selecting follow-up questions at First Minister's question time? As the MSP for Argyll and Bute, the constituency in which 60 per cent of Caledonian MacBrayne routes originate, I thought that, at the very least, I would get an opportunity to question the First Minister on what is an important constituency issue.

The criteria are as set out before. I have many variables to take account of, not least time and balance. I am sure that, over the course, balance, time and constituency interests are well served.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—