Engagements
Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
As of Tuesday, 6,000 convicted criminals a year will escape jail because the First Minister pushed through legislation against short prison sentences. Kenny MacAskill has said that it is fine, because those convicted criminals are just “daft laddies”. Does the First Minister agree?
First, let us have a look at the phrase “pushed through”. This is a minority Government, which—as Iain Gray knows—has to appeal for support to gain a majority, particularly in legislative terms. The reason why the criminal justice system has been changed in Scotland is because a majority in this Parliament believed that that was the right direction to take.
It is all very well having 1,000 additional police officers, but when they arrest criminals, what happens to those criminals matters. Last year, 736 of those 6,000 “daft laddies” were violent offenders, 148 were knife criminals and 17 were sex offenders. This year they will not go to jail at all; they will do community service. We read this morning that they might get “30 days’ hard knitting”. Can the First Minister tell me how many criminals who are given those arduous sentences ever even complete them?
It is not, as Iain Gray puts it, “all very well” that there are 1,000 extra police officers on the streets of Scotland; it is all very important that these officers are protecting people across the country. Not a single one of those officers would have been employed if we had listened to the Labour Party. It is also not the case that a 30-year low in recorded crime is merely incidental. For the first time in recorded crime statistics, the fear of crime is dropping across Scottish communities. My belief is that that is because of the additional officers that have been delivered by this Administration, not one of whom was supported by the Labour Party.
What is important is that the justice system backs those police officers and backs the public. Even those who agree with the First Minister with regard to short sentences—I do not—would tell him that the policy will work only if the community justice system is working, too. The fact is that 40 per cent of those who are sentenced to community service do not finish their sentences. In some parts of Scotland, the figure is as high as two thirds. The community sentence system is not working, but the First Minister is cramming thousands more offenders into it. Everyone knows that many will get off scot free. That is why the First Minister is seen by so many as “Soft-touch Salmond”.
I point out to Iain Gray that he cannot just sweep away the fact that he believes that the 1,000 extra officers are not being backed up in the judicial system, for two reasons. One is that if it had been up to the Labour Party they would not have existed at all—they would not have been there to be backed up by the judicial system. Secondly, as we saw in the Public Petitions Committee’s debate on knife crime, and in other evidence that has been submitted to that committee, that police officers such as John Carnochan—who said, “I’ve been a cop for 34 years”—support the direction of travel of this Parliament and this Government with regard to the judicial system.
As ever, the First Minister has no answer to any of the questions. I have freedom of information figures that show that some first-time prisoners had 40 previous convictions. They had not not reoffended; they had reoffended 40 times before they went to jail. Hundreds of them had 10, 20 or 30 previous convictions before they ever faced jail. They do not go to jail, and some of them do not even turn up for community service, and all of that happened before the Scottish Government abolished thousands of short sentences. It is not right.
I believe that
Prime Minister (Meetings)
I hope to meet the Prime Minister in the next couple of weeks.
Is 30 days’ knitting a tough community sentence?
Annabel Goldie should have the flexibility to adjust her question after hearing Iain Gray’s efforts. Of course, perhaps, after hearing the Labour leader, she thought that she could do rather better.
I point out a headline in a paper this morning: “Sentenced to 30 days’ hard knitting”. I inform the First Minister that two knitting needles, a ball of wool and a cup of tea are not a tough community sentence. In Scotland, we call that a knitting bee.
I suppose the real difficulty for Annabel Goldie and, indeed, for her back benchers is the recognition that Ken Clarke, as a Tory Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor in a coalition Administration south of the border, is now pursuing exactly the same policies—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
We do not take points of order during questions.
I think that I understand why Annabel Goldie did not want to hear this point, but nonetheless—[Interruption.]
Order.
I think the difficulty for Annabel Goldie is that a Tory Lord Chancellor in a coalition Administration is pursuing exactly the same policies against short sentences and in favour of community justice as this Administration is pursuing in Scotland. Why would that be the case if he had not analysed the position and come to the conclusion that he should do that? Is he being overridden by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition or is he just a sensible Lord Chancellor who is trying to improve the justice situation in England, just as this Administration has pursued it in Scotland?
As the First Minister knows, I am responsible for my party’s justice policy in Scotland, and the First Minister is responsible for the justice system in Scotland. Is not it time that he started doing the job?
I think that this is a case of short memories, and not just of short sentences. At last week’s question time, Annabel Goldie asked me about a policy that is being pursued by the coalition Government south of the border with regard to cancer drugs. This week, she is complaining when I refer to another coalition policy south of the border that includes the commonsense approach that short prison sentences do not work. They do not protect the public, they do not serve society, and that is why the Scottish Government’s justice policies, which are supported by a majority of the Parliament, are the way forward for Scotland.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I met the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday at the economic summit between the three devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government.
Yesterday, the Scottish Government said that it would transfer social workers to the national health service under Government direction. The Government also plans to scrap local fire and police boards and to put them under Government direction. Council tax levels are directed nationally, school buildings have been given to a quango under ministerial control, and even local salt stocks for our roads are now decided nationally. Will the First Minister tell us whether there are any other areas of responsibility that he plans to remove from local government?
I cannot believe that Tavish Scott is actually disputing the effectiveness of having the resilience supply of salt stocks held nationally during the recent weather emergency in Scotland; nor, I hope, would he dispute the obvious advantage of having a resilience supply of vaccine for the flu virus being held centrally. Tavish Scott must understand that we judge such matters in terms of effective government and what delivers for the people of Scotland. In both of those examples, having that central resilience supply was obviously in the best interests of Scotland.
I thought that I was asking the questions, not being asked them.
If I may say so, Tavish Scott made an error in not giving Lord Sutherland the benefit of quoting his full remarks. Let me do so, for the chamber. He said:
As I have written to the First Minister on this matter, he will be aware that thousands of my constituents are protesting at the proposed siting in Coatbridge of a pyrolysis incinerator, which was refused planning permission by the council. Given that under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 it is within Alex Salmond’s Government’s power to refuse the developer’s current appeal, will he do so and put the interests of the people of Coatbridge before Shore Energy’s private profits?
If Elaine Smith has been looking up the acts, she must know that I cannot give a judgment or determination on a matter of ministerial discretion in this way.
Trump?
If Mike Rumbles wants to raise other matters, he should catch the Presiding Officer’s eye. He can then ask a question, to which he will get a robust answer.
As the First Minister will be aware, the mortality rate for death from Clostridium difficile at the Vale of Leven hospital has been revised upwards. Instead of the 55 people affected and 18 deaths that were originally reported, the public inquiry is now considering 60 people affected and 38 deaths—a staggering number that confirms that this has been the worst outbreak in the United Kingdom. Does the First Minister agree that further steps need to be taken to ensure that C diff is recorded appropriately on death certificates? Is he able to advise the chamber whether he or the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has been told of the further delay to the conclusion of the public inquiry?
This independent public inquiry, which was established by the cabinet secretary, is live and on-going and must be given its full latitude to examine all the issues in this tragic and serious case. Although we accept that the public inquiry has that job and remit, I am sure that Jackie Baillie will be the very first to acknowledge that C difficile cases have been halved in Scotland, which is a welcome improvement in what is a tragic and difficult condition.
Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (Meetings)
Christine Grahame will be aware of the importance that the Scottish Government places on our relationship with the SCVO. We are in regular contact with the organisation. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth met it and a range of third sector organisations to discuss the independent budget review, and on 26 January officials attended the SCVO policy committee.
The First Minister will be aware that, in England, citizens advice bureaux are being closed at a time when—as there is in Scotland—there is increasing demand for advice about debt, changes to the benefits system and eligibility for benefits, and homelessness. As CABx in Scotland are substantially funded by local authorities, will he enter into discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the matter, given that money that is spent on keeping CABx doors open is, in my opinion, spending to save by preventing ill health, family break-ups and loss of homes?
That point is hugely important. CABx provide a valuable service to communities and, indeed, to individuals throughout Scotland and I hope that members across the chamber will join me in putting on the record appreciation for their work.
The First Minister has, of course, disregarded the fact that there was pressure on the sector before the coalition cuts came in. Those cuts are now compounding the pressures. He also disregarded the fact that local government may find its savings disproportionately through the voluntary sector. Is he aware of the concerns of those who represent workers in the voluntary sector not just about the huge pressure on those who face losing their jobs, but on those who will remain in post and will have to pick up extra responsibilities in order to deliver the services that they care about? Will he agree to meet representatives of voluntary sector workers and their unions to consider urgently what he can do to support them in these difficult times?
I have set out the regular discussions that we have. We have had discussions very recently, and I would be happy to meet the SCVO and associate unions at any time.
Given the First Minister’s fulsome support for the voluntary sector and his recent meeting with the SCVO, does he want to comment on information that has been given to members? A document that they have been given says that the SCVO’s
I said that Johann Lamont should recognise the Labour Party’s part in the public sector squeeze in Scotland. It is time that Hugh O’Donnell recognised that he has colleagues in London who are leading the attack on public services. The Government’s aim and ambition to have no compulsory redundancies is hugely important and vital for public services in Scotland. I also recognise the key role of the SCVO and the attendant voluntary organisations, which is exactly why they have been asked and have agreed to participate at the very heart of the Christie commission. That is the priority that we put on the role and performance of the voluntary sector in Scotland.
New National Examinations
No. The advice of the curriculum for excellence management board, which includes, of course, the teaching unions, directors of education and the Scottish Qualifications Authority, is clear: the new qualifications are on track. Indeed, at its meeting on 16 December 2010, the management board explicitly recommended that there should be no delay and that the new qualifications be delivered on time in 2013-14. It should also be remembered that, despite the naysaying of doom-mongers, the new curriculum has been successfully implemented in every single secondary school in Scotland from August. That is a track record of achievement that gives confidence to teachers, parents and pupils alike.
Scotland’s schools have more than 3,000 fewer teachers now than they had in 2007. Officials worry that we could lose 900 more next year, which would bring the total of teachers’ jobs lost under the Scottish National Party to 4,000.
I have given the curriculum for excellence management board’s view on implementation. I know that Des McNulty would not want to be counted among the doom-mongers whose forecasts have proven to be distinctly wide of the mark.
Glasgow Sheriff Court (One-stop Shop)
I was delighted that Bill Aitken welcomed that new initiative in the letters page of The Herald on Tuesday this week. I know from his letter that he agrees that the Scottish Government has delivered measures to make community sentences tougher, faster and more effective. The pilot that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice announced last Sunday will receive funding of £175,000 from the Scottish Government. It will help to ensure that offenders who are, at Glasgow sheriff court, sentenced to unpaid work will begin their sentences immediately.
The prospect of the Scottish Government making community service tougher is remote, to say the least. Will the First Minister accept that we genuinely regard the measures as common sense? They will introduce some immediacy for community service, which I hope will reduce the appalling breach rate to which Mr Gray referred.
I was about to welcome Bill Aitken to the enlightened majority in the Parliament. I know that it is difficult for him to strike a balance between avoiding losing the reputation on crime that he has built up over the years and acknowledging—as he did in The Herald’s letters column—that new initiatives are working and making community sentences operate faster, which I am sure he accepts.
Does the First Minister agree that major gains for public safety will result from the speedier and more effective community orders such as those that are assisted by the project in Glasgow? Community payback orders typically cost £1,000 to £4,000. Does he agree that the proper way forward is to sort the problems with community payback orders and not to bang up people unnecessarily by way of yet another prison disposal that costs £40,000 a year and that has twice the reoffending rate?
I agree. I believe that Robert Brown was part of the majority in the chamber who saw the logic and sense of the proposals that are now being unveiled. I welcome his support in that regard. I am certain that this is the right direction of travel for criminal justice in Scotland. Those of us who believe that do so from a solid platform: the lowest rate of recorded crime for 30 years in Scotland; the highest public satisfaction and lowest fear of crime ever in Scotland; and the 1,000 extra officers who are patrolling the streets of Scotland and making our communities safe.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer, you ruled earlier that the leader of the Conservative party should keep her point of order until after questions had been taken. You said that that was because in this chamber we do not accept point of orders during question time. Is that a convention or a standing order?
It is a convention, Ms MacDonald.