Plenary, 03 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, September 3, 2009

Official Report 734KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1827)

Later today I have a range of engagements to carry forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

I ask that the chamber gets the opportunity to recognise the tragic news of the deaths of Sergeant Stuart Millar from Inverness and Private Kevin Elliott from Dundee of the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland. Those men were killed as a result of an explosion while on active service in Helmand province on Monday morning. I know that all colleagues throughout the chamber will wish to join me in sending condolences to the men's families.

The First Minister knows that he has the condolences of the Labour Party to pass on, too.

Perhaps members will indulge me in asking them to note that, within the next few minutes, Royal National Lifeboats Institution stations throughout Britain will be paying tribute to the 778 lifesavers lost in the line of duty. Like many others, my constituency, which has stations at Dunbar and North Berwick, owes much to its lifeboat volunteers.

Yesterday, the First Minister and his Government were resoundingly defeated in the Parliament over the most important decision that they have had to take. He personally failed to carry the chamber. All the evidence shows that he has failed to carry Scottish opinion. Most Scots believe that the reputation of Scotland has been damaged. Does the First Minister have any regrets about how his Government has handled this matter?

I have regrets about how the matter was handled in the chamber. In particular, I have regrets that Opposition parties, on what was a matter of principle and justice, chose to whip and dragoon their members into voting against the Government. Iain Gray should understand that choosing to use such a vital issue of justice in an attempt to destabilise a Government is a very foolhardy strategy, particularly given that the Government that he has started to destabilise is his own one in London.

Let us talk about principle and justice. If a single thing characterises what was wrong about how this decision was taken, it is Mr MacAskill's visit to Greenock prison, which compromised the whole process. Every explanation for it has collapsed.

Yesterday, Mr MacAskill said that he did not want a media circus if al-Megrahi stayed in Scotland, so why did he orchestrate one in Greenock? I refer to the Press Association diary from the night before the visit. In between references to the exam helpline and a rehearsal for the tattoo, it states,

"Justice Secretary meets Lockerbie bomber",

and provides a Scottish Government press officer's contact number. If the First Minister cannot explain—he failed to do so yesterday—why Mr MacAskill had to go to Greenock, can he explain why the media had to go, too?

The note on that was exactly the same as the notes for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's meetings with the American Government, the Libyan Government, the United Kingdom families, the Lockerbie family and the Spanish family. All the justice secretary's intentions to conduct meetings were announced in public, because it would have been a grave mistake to hold secret meetings as part of a judicial process.

Although we have been over this territory a number of times, I have yet to hear a convincing answer to this point that the justice secretary made: if we were conducting direct meetings with all interested parties in the case, if this was the first prisoner transfer agreement that did not require the consent of the person to be transferred, and if direct meetings were held with all other parties, why would it not have been a breach of natural justice and an open invitation to judicial review if a meeting was not held with a party under discussion? Perhaps Iain Gray will take the opportunity to make an observation on that rather simple point.

I am happy to do so because those meetings were not all the same. Although the justice secretary was prepared to go to Greenock to meet the bomber face to face, he chose not to cross the Atlantic to afford the American families the same courtesy. We know that he was prepared to cross the Atlantic earlier this year to go to a Burns supper when he should have been right here with knife crime victims. Does the First Minister now accept that he should have insisted that his justice secretary afforded the same respect to the families of the victims as he did al-Megrahi by meeting them face to face? Would that not have been natural justice?

There were meetings with the families by videolink to the United States. There were direct meetings in person with families in the United Kingdom, the Lockerbie relatives and the Spanish relatives. The justice minister was totally open about the process that he was following and totally punctilious about the prisoner transfer agreement. I remind Iain Gray that the prisoner transfer agreement was not sought by the justice minister or by this governing party but signed between the Governments in Libya and Westminster. However, once it became part of the law of Scotland, a justice minister was duty bound to carry out the issue by due process.

The problem that Iain Gray has on this matter, and the reason why he concentrates unavailingly on process, is that he cannot take on the issue of principle. The heart of this matter is the one that is being consistently addressed by the justice secretary, which is whether we should, in our justice system, be able to offer compassion and mercy to a dying man, even one who has committed a great atrocity. That is the issue of principle that people in Scotland are debating. It is unfortunate that in his desire for party-political advantage, Iain Gray cannot rise to that issue of principle.

The issue of principle here is the balance that is struck between compassion for the prisoner, and compassion for the victims, the length of the sentence remaining, and the courts' view of that sentence. At no stage, either yesterday or last Monday, has that issue of balance been addressed.

At the beginning of the Lockerbie story is an act of terror. I agree that the principles and integrity of our justice system are exactly our greatest bulwarks against terror, but so, too, are our parliamentary democracy and its integrity. Yesterday, the First Minister lost, in the Parliament. He cannot simply, like the Sid James of minority government, carry on governing, as he said last night he would. Will he at least support my suggestion of a Justice Committee inquiry to look further into the Scottish Government's handling of this matter? We can then find out how, for example, the American families feel about the equivalence of treatment they have received in the process.

The justice minister and I will be delighted to appear at the Justice Committee to account for the Government's actions. I hope that there is the same enthusiasm on the part of ministers at Westminster to appear before their committees to account for the actions of their Government. The contrast between Labour's posturing in Scotland and Labour's silence in London has been glaringly obvious over the past few weeks. It illustrates the great mistake that Iain Gray has made in trying to party politick on the grave issue of justice.

On the question of removing the Government, Iain Gray has his opportunity. It is only two weeks since Labour members were speculating and briefing the press that there would be motions of no confidence and motions of censure. They ran away from that as they run away from every big issue in Scottish politics.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

I call question 2.

The Scottish Parliament has established that, in deciding to release the Lockerbie bomber, the Salmond Government made a bad decision badly. It has also been established that the United Kingdom Labour Government was involved in double-dealing diplomacy. I now want to move on to whether the Scottish Government also failed to act in an up-front and proper way and whether it was involved in dubious deals and nudge-and-wink diplomacy. In all the Scottish Government's dealings with Arab states, seeking money for the First Minister's Scottish Futures Trust, did the issue of Mr al-Megrahi's release ever come into play? Was it raised in any form?

The documents that we published are all the documents that we have relating to the decisions on Mr al-Megrahi. That is why we put them in the public domain. I am sure that Annabel Goldie, as a woman of fairness and dispassion on such matters and one who has read those documents, will agree that the commitment that I gave to the Parliament in May that the Government would always look on such issues on a judicial basis is borne out by every single one of the documents. We released so many documents into the public domain not just in the interests of transparency, to which I am committed, but because we were confident that they would vindicate our position that, right through this matter, judicial considerations and the protection of the integrity of the Scottish judicial system were the sole and only motivation for Kenny MacAskill's decision.

I am afraid that there are suspicions—and facts. Fact: the First Minister is seeking money for his Scottish Futures Trust from Arab states. Fact: on 11 June 2009, he met the Qatari Government and discussed trade and Mr al-Megrahi's release at the same time. Fact: on 17 July 2009, the Qatari Government wrote to the Scottish Government, supporting compassionate release. Fact: one week later, Mr al-Megrahi applied for compassionate release. That does not look good.

The First Minister has told Mr Gray that it would be a grave mistake to hold secret meetings. Is the First Minister still going to Qatar later this year to ask for money? Will he publish all the correspondence, notes and minutes of meetings—and the details of all proposed meetings—between his Government and Arab states?

All the information that we have that is relevant to Mr al-Megrahi's case has been published by the Government. If Annabel Goldie revisits the correspondence, she will find that everyone who contacted the Government was advised to put their views to Mr MacAskill, who was adjudicating on the issue as the justice minister of Scotland. In that correspondence, she will read that some people, including a former Conservative defence minister and a current Conservative MP, suggested that we should use Mr al-Megrahi as a "bargaining chip" for other issues or suggested that the matter should be considered as one of trade and investment. She will also see that the Government gave exactly the same answer to anyone making representations: that the justice secretary would consider his decisions only on the basis of matters of justice and upholding the integrity of our legal system.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1839)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Nothing that we can do can bring back the 270 lives of the Lockerbie victims. What faces us now is to reflect that many victims' families feel that they will now never know the true story of Pan Am 103. Does the First Minister believe that the Scottish Government has a duty to those families? Will he explore any avenues where any new information and evidence can be considered? Have any discussions taken place between ministers and the judiciary to consider whether, in the special circumstances of the case, evidence that has been gathered for the appeal can be made public?

Kenny MacAskill addressed that issue in his statement on 20 August, when he indicated our full confidence in the prosecution and police forces of Scotland. In the context of wider international matters, which many people think are relevant to the case, he also indicated that if a legitimate authority made inquiry into those matters, the Scottish Government would of course fully co-operate.

I draw Tavish Scott's attention to the fact that a body of examination, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, sat, if I remember correctly, for three years considering the issue. Although in practice not all its evidence can be released into the public domain, the body published a full account of its conclusion. I believe that there were four grounds on the basis of which the matter was sent back to the appeal court. That indicates that within our justice system there has been review, care and examination and that information has been published on which people can base their arguments and interest in the case.

Because of the appeal, which was dropped, these matters are within Scottish jurisdiction. Will the First Minister agree to start discussions with the judiciary to examine how the evidence that has accumulated could be taken further, as I asked? The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission believes that it has information of value, but that has now in part been locked away as a result of the ending of the appeal. The victims' families want the opportunity to see and test that information and to learn what closure and resolution it can bring for them. If the First Minister takes action on the matter, including by changing the law, he will have our support. Does he agree that securing closure and resolution for the families is particularly important?

I certainly believe in the interests of the families in the Lockerbie case. I met two of the families yesterday evening and considered some of those matters. As I have said before, I would never criticise a grief-stricken family for its comments on the case, but it is wrong to assume that all families have the same view of the decision that was taken. Indeed, the families who were with us yesterday supported the decision on compassionate release.

On the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and its report, I have discussed with law officers what matters could be published. I am prepared to continue those discussions, because if it were possible—and if it were helpful to people—to publish more information than the commission was able to publish under its normal procedure, under current circumstances I would be interested in seeing that done. Throughout this affair, the Scottish Government has been committed to the maximum possible transparency.

During yesterday's debate, I found it interesting that material that was published in 2007 was perhaps not familiar to all the members who contributed. If it helps Tavish Scott, I can confirm that I have already had discussions to see whether further matters could be published, over and above the summary of 2007.

As we were unable to call her in yesterday's debate, I will take a supplementary question from Margo MacDonald.

Thank you. Will the First Minister consider a further inquiry, which might be elicited from organisations in Scandinavia that specialise in conflict resolution, mediation and so on? Does he intend to co-operate with the American senator who has flagged up the possibility of a Senate investigation?

I stand by what Mr MacAskill said on 20 August. Members should acknowledge two things. First, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has expressed his full confidence in the Scottish prosecution services, the Scottish judiciary and the Scottish police forces in terms of the conduct of the case. We have nothing whatever to be ashamed of in our country about the way in which our judicial forces acted. Secondly, the wider international ramifications of many aspects of the Lockerbie atrocity are beyond the jurisdiction of Scottish courts or indeed Scottish inquiries, which would not have the ability to summon either key witnesses or, indeed, key documents. Mr Kenny MacAskill made that point on 20 August.

Of course, if a legitimate international authority launches an inquiry, the Scottish authorities will co-operate with that, because we have nothing to hide in the matter and have given maximum transparency at every stage in the entire process.

---

Short Sentences<br />(Impact on Reconviction Rates)

To ask the First Minister what impact short sentences have on reconviction rates. (S3F-1846)

The statistics that were published on Monday show that almost three out of four of those who were sentenced to six months or less in prison will offend again within two years. By contrast, three out of five of those who were sentenced to community service have a clean record after that time. The figures are entirely consistent with the findings of the Scottish Prisons Commission, which noted in paragraph 2.22 of its report

"a large body of evidence showing that when"

people imprisoned for short sentences

"return to their communities, they are more likely than those on community sentences, to be reconvicted and reimprisoned."

The Scottish Government is working to improve community service provision throughout Scotland. As well as the measures that are contained in the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill that is now before Parliament, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice announced on 23 June an additional £5.5 million to help to deliver swifter and more effective community justice by allowing local authorities to employ more staff to support community service projects.

The commission on English prisons today, which is chaired by Cherie Booth, has described the Scottish Government's actions as taking

"a courageous lead in the UK by taking serious steps to address its prison crisis"

by changing prisons policy. Does the First Minister welcome that support? Does he agree that the reoffending figures that were released this week—which he mentioned and which show that short sentences consistently fail to cut reoffending—make it imperative that, after years of failed prisons policy, Scotland tackles reoffending behaviour rather than simply locking people up? Does he also agree that those figures show that Scottish National Party justice policy is taking Scotland in the right direction?

I welcome the support that the commission on English prisons today—led, as it is, by a highly distinguished English barrister—has offered for our coherent offender management strategy. As Cherie Booth QC said:

"more widespread use of effective community sentences would both allow us to reduce the use of prison and allow for reinvestment of resources into local communities to cut offending."

Those seem to me to be words of profound common sense and I hope that that view is shared by the maximum number of members.

I did not know that the First Minister was such a fan of Cherie Booth. Does he not acknowledge that plans that will introduce a presumption against any custodial sentence for 65 per cent of those who are convicted of knife crime will not address reconviction rates and that they send entirely the wrong message on that key area of crime? If he is so committed to robust community sentences, why did his Government scupper plans for the Glasgow community court?

If Richard Baker cares to look at the statistics, he will see that the average sentence for knife crime has increased under this Government to more than six months, whereas it was less than six months under the previous Administration. He can put that together with the latest statistics on police numbers, which show something that he said would never happen: we have record numbers of police in Scotland. Our manifesto commitment has been totally met and, furthermore, that is matched by the lowest recorded level of crime for a generation. Surely even Richard Baker should manage to welcome that.

Does the First Minister not recognise that so many prison sentences fail to have an impact as a result of his Government's policies? A six-month sentence for domestic violence or housebreaking, for example, is reduced to four months because of the Du Plooy ruling and reduced to 60 days because of automatic early release. Because of powers that his Cabinet Secretary for Justice has sought, those sentences can be reduced to one quarter of the original sentence. Is that not why so many prisoners spend such a short time in jail and are unaffected by the sentence? Prison is, in effect, a scoosh.

The first two examples that Bill Aitken cited were policies that a Conservative Government introduced. I know that that goes far back into the mists of time, but it is worth recalling that a Conservative Administration introduced automatic early release. I know that Bill Aitken and his Labour counterpart are engaged in a competition as to who can be the hard man on crime in Scottish politics, but I hope that the Conservatives at least will acknowledge that the record police numbers in Scotland and the lowest level of recorded crime are very substantial achievements for—let us be generous—the Parliament as a whole.

---

Child Protection (Inter-agency information)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to improve inter-agency information sharing following the significant case review and review for chief officers reports into the death of Brandon Muir. (S3F-1843)

The tragic death of Brandon Muir has shocked and saddened us all, and the Government will implement the national recommendations of the recently published significant case review as part of the wide-ranging review of national child protection guidance that is under way. We are also taking practical steps to improve information sharing, one of the major findings of the inquiry, through investing some £15 million between 2008 and 2011 to develop the e-care framework and fund a vulnerable persons system for Scottish police services.

Has the First Minister considered the recently published report, which stated:

"In the short three week period when Cunningham resided with Heather Boyd and her children, the authorities, while active in personal engagement with the family, were not able to assemble, process or assess all the available information on Boyd or Cunningham. The Inquiry revealed gaps and inaccuracies, some caused by pre-existing systems, others by a lack of available resource?"

What specific steps will the First Minister take to improve and identify the systems for identifying children who are at risk because their parents abuse alcohol or take drugs? What will he do to provide sufficient resources to make that possible so that we know the scale of the problem and who those children at risk are? Will he finally agree to Labour's proposal to set up a national inquiry into child protection in Scotland?

There have now been two reports into the death of Brandon Muir. There was the independently chaired significant case review and an independent inquiry by former Fife chief constable Peter Wilson. I have read both of the reviews and the inquiry report, and the Government is acting on all the recommendations that were contained therein.

Peter Wilson's report makes a number of key recommendations, but one of its conclusions is that

"In Brandon Muir's case - collecting, sharing and assessing all the information in the short time frame when he was at acute risk, was not helped by difficulties in accessing records, and evaluating information."

That is exactly why I pointed in my first reply to the investment in the e-care system to allow agencies to share information and allow the urgent child protection messages to be sent and received.

The circumstances of this tragic case have been examined in the two reports, but I think that we should remember and acknowledge that the system of inspection that has been moving authority by authority across Scotland—I think that I am right in saying that only one authority has now to report inspection—has not only given us the best possible information on how child protection services are being deployed across the country but, in the few authorities that have had unacceptable reports, including Dundee City Council, has allowed key improvements to be made. We should acknowledge and have confidence in the inspectors and in the system of inspection, which is not just finding out how the services are being deployed, but, critically, resulting in substantial improvements where service providers have been shown to be wanting in their facilities or techniques.

In March, the First Minister admitted that between 10,000 and 20,000 children could still be living with drug-misusing parents, but he failed to answer Tavish Scott's question at that time on how many of those cases were being reviewed in light of the tragic case of Brandon Muir. Can the First Minister answer that question now?

The processes are being reviewed in terms of the information and the reports that we get. The authority-by-authority examination gives us the best possible handle on how child protection services are being deployed across the country. The concentration that the Government and the ministerial team are putting into the issue is very substantial indeed. The issue has been discussed—I think that a question under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 asked about this—at innumerable Cabinet meetings, and rightly so given the importance of the subject.

However, let us remember that there are no easy answers to the question. Per head of population, we have more children in care in Scotland than there are in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is just a fact. The number has been increasing very substantially in recent years. That has been necessary to protect children, but no one should think that that is the underlying issue. The underlying issue is substance misuse and, indeed, alcohol misuse. As well as ensuring that the services to protect children are as good as they can be, and as well as reinforcing what the Parliament should be doing in supporting social workers in the extraordinarily difficult job that they do, we must also accept as a society that the key underlying problem is the substance and alcohol misuse that is causing the problems in the first place.

We started late, so I will also allow question 6.

---

Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government has taken in response to the anticipated problems in implementation of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. (S3F-1837)

First, I pay tribute to Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson, who died suddenly last week. As members know, Sheriff Principal Nicholson was the architect of the new licensing regime. I know that those who worked with him appreciated the careful thought and wise counsel that led to the changes that came into effect this week.

The changeover to the new licensing regime has been a major task for the licensed trade, the police and licensing boards. The 2005 act set a broad national framework, with a huge amount of flexibility for licensing boards to decide what is right for their area. Inevitably, the application process has raised some issues at local level. I know that some licensing boards are working hard on the transition process. At national level, the Government has already worked with stakeholders to simplify the bureaucracy, worked with the Accounts Commission to review the fee arrangements and used the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill to put right some of the glitches in the 2005 act.

The 2005 act is a major step forward, but it will undoubtedly take time to bed in. The act gives us a platform to build on with the new measures in the Government's alcohol framework. Those will continue to process our aim and intent of rebalancing Scotland's relationship with alcohol.

I associate myself with the First Minister's comments about Sheriff Principal Nicholson.

Is the First Minister aware that the initial guidance that the Scottish Government issued under the 2005 act stated that ministers did not believe that restrictions on irresponsible promotions could presently be extended to off-sales promotions? Will he confirm that that guidance has in effect been dumped by Scottish ministers, which has given licensing boards the green light to restrict off-sales promotions? Does he agree that, although there is a strong case for banning irresponsible promotions by off-licences, such matters must nevertheless not be introduced by the back door? That is an issue on which the Scottish Government has got form.

I am sorry that Robert Brown has chosen to introduce the matter in that way.

The Government's intention on such matters could not be clearer. That is why we have introduced the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill and why we will bring forward the new legislation that I outlined this morning. Robert Brown should not confuse the undoubted deficiencies in the 2005 legislation with the Government's intent to attack the scourge of alcohol misuse in Scotland.

I do not know whether Robert Brown has looked back to the press on the day that the 2005 legislation was passed, but I have done so. It reads: "shambles", "farce", "booze laws confusion". It talks about an open confrontation on the floor of the chamber between Tom McCabe, the Labour minister in charge, and his Liberal deputy, George Lyon. Mike Rumbles MSP is quoted as summing up the matter by saying that the passing of the legislation that we are now implementing was

"a sad day for the Scottish Parliament".

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—