Before we commence First Minister's question time, members will wish to welcome His Excellency Dr Bingu wa Mutharika, President of the Republic of Malawi. [Applause.]
Cabinet (Meetings)
I know that we all wish this weekend's conference well and pledge our continued solidarity with the people of Malawi.
The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
I wish the Commonwealth games team the very best of luck next year.
I suspect that Ms Sturgeon is about to tell me. I look forward to hearing it.
I can tell the First Minister that less than 2 per cent of the people who are convicted of possessing a knife or other offensive weapon are tried on indictment. In 2003, the figure amounted to just 42 people out of 2,800. Is he aware that, under the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, his flagship policy, the new four-year maximum sentence, which he has said repeatedly will apply to anyone who is convicted of the possession of a knife, will apply only to those who are tried in the higher courts? In other words, the sentence will apply to less than 2 per cent of the people who risk lives by carrying knives. In the light of that, does he accept that his presentation of the policy has been extremely misleading, to say the least?
No. I think that that presentation of the policy is extremely misleading. Not only are we doubling sentences for knife crime, but we are increasing the sentences that are available for summary convictions. If Ms Sturgeon were to look at the whole package, she would see that all our courts will have the option of increased sentences. As outlined in our plans, we will also have the new targeted actions, which are aimed at ensuring that the police take more action against those who might commit knife crimes—I am referring to the new power to stop and search people who may be carrying weapons, although I could mention other examples. That comprehensive package of action is designed alongside our efforts to change the culture of knife crime and violence in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland; it is designed to ensure that we not only reduce the number of knife crimes, but penalise more severely all those who are convicted.
I support the Executive's efforts to tackle knife crime. The First Minister neatly dodged the question, however. I draw his attention to the pile of Executive policy documents that I have in my hand, many of which were issued in his name. All of them say without any qualification that the new maximum sentence for the possession of knives will be four years. I challenge him to produce any statement that he has made that makes it clear that the maximum sentence for the 98 per cent of people who are tried under summary procedure will be not the four years that he is talking about, but just one year. If he cannot produce such a statement, can he say why none of his policy statements makes that position clear? Is he simply trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public?
In the past, Ms Sturgeon has referred in the chamber to her legal training. If she had paid more attention during that training, she might have realised that the new one-year maximum for summary convictions is a doubling of the sentences that are currently available in our summary courts. Of course, all the maximum sentences are being doubled, but it is for the Crown Office to decide which convictions should be pursued in any given case. It is not for politicians to pick and choose to which court offenders are referred in individual cases; it is our job to protect people in Scotland and to ensure that, whatever court an offender is referred to, the maximum sentence is increased, that more people face that sentence because more people are caught and that we tackle the booze culture that for far too long has led to much of the knife crime in the first place.
The summary sentence may be being doubled, but not to the four years to which all the Executive's documents exclusively refer. I know that the First Minister prefers to rant than to answer questions, but I ask him to make an effort to answer what is a simple question. If it is the case that the overwhelming majority of people who are convicted of carrying a knife—98 per cent of them—will face not a four-year maximum sentence, but a one-year maximum sentence, would it not be more honest for him to present his policy in those terms, instead of exaggerating its impact?
Ms Sturgeon and the Scottish National Party might be obsessed with presentation, but we are interested in substance. We want to do something about the problem rather than to present our solution to it in ways of which Ms Sturgeon approves.
Question 2 is withdrawn, but I will allow supplementaries from Annabel Goldie. [Applause.]
Thank you, Presiding Officer. My question follows on neatly from Ms Sturgeon's line of inquiry and relates to what happens to prisoners when sentences are imposed. Is the First Minister committed, in principle, to ending the now totally discredited system of automatic early release of prisoners from our jails?
I welcome Annabel Goldie to her new seat. I hope that it is not too presumptuous of me to say that I suspect that she will be there for more than one week, beyond the close of nominations for the Tory leadership. If that is the case, we would warmly congratulate her on her new position.
That is an unexpectedly encouraging response. During this afternoon's consideration of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, my party will give the Executive the opportunity to end the scandalous system of automatic early release not retrospectively, but in a timescale that would be totally under the control of the Executive, because the change can be implemented only by an Executive statutory instrument. Will the First Minister let us all rejoice by confirming that he will agree to our amendment?
No, because I think that politicians should practise what they preach. For the past two years, we have said consistently that the Sentencing Commission for Scotland should give us a clear recommendation on how to implement the objective in question. When we have received that recommendation—we will have it by the end of the year—we will ensure that it or an improvement on it is implemented by the Parliament. We are determined to end the Tory policy of automatic early release. We will ensure that the system in Scotland is improved as a result, but we will do so following due consideration with our judicial colleagues and others and once we have ensured that the policy that is established can be implemented effectively.
That response is deeply depressing because, by failing to agree to our amendment, the First Minister will be enforcing a system that will let convicted prisoners out of jail even earlier than they are getting out now. I suspect that that will represent the major difference between my attitude to the concerns of Scotland and the First Minister's. I am listening to those concerns and I will try to address them this afternoon, whereas the First Minister is content to sit here and prate parrot-wise a meaningless mantra of false hope. If the current approach does not end this afternoon, when will it end?
We will introduce legislation as soon as we have that recommendation; as I said, we should have it by the end of this year. If the recommendation is not sufficient for us, we will improve on it and ensure that the policy that we implement is effective. However, we will also pursue other measures—not only in the bill that is being discussed this afternoon but in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill—to rectify some of the wrongs of the Conservative years. Such measures include increased sentences and new, tougher powers to help our police and local authorities to tackle not just antisocial behaviour, but knife crime and other serious concerns of the people of Scotland. We will continue the fundamental modernisation and reform of the criminal justice system in Scotland from top to bottom on which we have been embarked for the past two years. That approach is effective and will be even more effective as our bills reach the statute book.
The First Minister will be aware of yesterday's determination in the fatal accident inquiry into the death of a baby who was born at Inverclyde royal hospital's maternity unit shortly after it became a midwife-led unit. Sheriff Herald found that that tragic death could not have been avoided, but his wider comments—that expectant mothers in my constituency receive a second-class service—have naturally caused serious concern and make it increasingly difficult for the health board to maintain that the reorganisation of maternity services was carried out in the interests of patient safety. Does the First Minister agree that restoring public confidence in that midwife-led unit is vital? Will he and the Minister for Health and Community Care ensure that the specific weaknesses in the wider provision identified by the inquiry are addressed by the health board and others?
Although it is very important that we take the outcome of the inquiry seriously—and the Minister for Health and Community Care will ensure that the health board addresses all the recommendations that arise from the inquiry report—it is also important that we deal with facts rather than the opinions of those who are not directly involved in the service. The reality is that midwife-led care in maternity services in Scotland should, as far as is humanly possible, be the norm. It should be encouraged in every location, not just in Inverclyde. Of course there should be proper technical and emergency services for those who need them in appropriate locations throughout Scotland. We will continue to monitor the developments in Inverclyde and ensure that the recommendations are properly carried through. However, we also want to ensure that Scotland's health service lives up to the achievement of being recognised by the national birth and motherhood survey 2005 as having the best services in the United Kingdom.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
The First Minister should be aware that a recent survey suggests that 320 acres of public green space is currently proposed for development or is already being built on as a result of school public-private partnership projects in Scotland. The Executive—
Mr Harper, you are one question ahead of us. You should ask the question in the Business Bulletin before we come to that one.
I beg your pardon—I am too keen to get to the point. The First Minister knows what I am about to say.
I thought that Mr Harper was going to ask where we were going to meet and whether it would be on the green fields of Scotland. I do not have any formal meetings planned with the secretary of state, but I discuss a lot of matters with him regularly.
Back to where we were, Mr Harper.
I will cut to the chase. The Executive is not protecting open space in Scotland. The planning system is failing, the statutory consultation process is failing and the Executive is failing in respect of green space. Does the First Minister agree that all those projects that are still on the drawing board should be halted until we have a clear picture of what is going on and until the Executive and the councils are given the chance to arrest what is a most unwelcome trend?
No, I do not agree. I believe that development should be appropriate. The fantastic countryside and landscape that we enjoy in Scotland should be preserved, but where development is needed and is appropriately planned, it should take place to ensure that future generations can enjoy Scotland even more. We need to make a balanced judgment in all cases. That is primarily the responsibility of local authorities, acting under our guidance, which is why we are bringing forward the most comprehensive set of modernisation plans for our planning system that Scotland has ever seen. When we bring forward those plans, we will ensure that the planning system achieves the twin goals of proper sustainable development in the interest of local communities and fast, efficient and effective implementation by local authorities. Those are our objectives, which our plans will meet.
Up and down Scotland, from north to south, parents and local communities are up in arms about the fact that parkland, playing fields, recreation grounds, amenity space and informal green space are being lost for ever to housing through public-private partnerships. That does not need to happen. I have a list of 20 councils that do not even know what is happening and cannot respond to questions about how much green space is being lost. Surely the First Minister agrees that that parlous situation is a matter of considerable concern and that something must be done. Will he please call in all projects that infringe on our community green space?
It is important that local authorities take issues about green space and playing fields on board before making final decisions on new school buildings and other plans. However, I say to Mr Harper that, all across Scotland, parents, members of the community and youngsters are using the arms that he mentions to punch the air with joy, because they are getting new school buildings and better facilities are being provided for them and those who will come after them.
Glasgow Housing Association
To ask the First Minister what measures will be taken to ensure that Glasgow Housing Association housing stock is retained under the control of community ownership. (S2F-1899)
We have already invested £202 million since the Glasgow transfer and more than 32,000 tenants have seen investment in their homes in almost all areas of the city. Malcolm Chisholm met the Glasgow Housing Association board on Monday, when he made it clear that community control through second-stage transfer to local housing organisations remains a top priority. We will work with the housing association to bring that forward as quickly as possible.
I welcome the First Minister's commitment to community ownership, but I raise with him the concern that European procurement rules could put community ownership at risk. Will he meet the European authorities to remind them of the need for tenant rule, not European rule?
Our advice, which may be contrary to the perception in the GHA when it made its decision last week, is that European Union procurement rules do not affect the delivery of investment or the second-stage transfer. That advice was explained clearly to the GHA by the Minister for Communities on Monday. We intend to work with the GHA to ensure that it makes the right decisions as quickly as possible to ensure that local people in Glasgow have the control that they were promised and that they see in their homes the investment that they require.
I am grateful to the First Minister for confirming that there is legal advice that EU procurement rules do not necessitate the GHA clawing back local management. He must be aware that a condition of GHA registration with Communities Scotland was that local management agreements were in place—local management was part of the commitment that was given to Glasgow tenants at the time of the stock transfer ballot. What will be the effect on GHA registration if local management agreements are set aside? Is he prepared to take action to ensure that second-stage transfers take place?
We have a difference of approach. We can look at the matter either negatively or positively. We have made clear to the GHA our legal advice and our expectation. The GHA had a positive discussion on Monday with the Minister for Communities, who intends to see through the issue and to ensure that the association implements the obligations that it took on board. I hope that, in achieving that, the minister will have the backing of those who previously opposed the transfer, were against community ownership for people in Glasgow and did not want them to have investment in their houses and all the other improvements that are coming. I welcome the Scottish National Party's conversion to the cause.
Does the First Minister agree with me—an enthusiastic proponent of community ownership in Glasgow—that if we are to build on the success of the housing association movement it is essential that the undertaking that he has given today be clarified to a greater extent and that we set a timetable for the GHA to ensure that the secondary transfer is begun early next year and completed in the shortest possible period?
Let me be clear that we did not encourage the establishment of the Glasgow Housing Association, support enthusiastically the transfer of ownership and put so much money into the venture simply to see one large organisation replaced by another to manage the tenanted homes in Glasgow. We want local housing organisations to own and manage houses and have responsibility for them so that people have maximum control over their local environment and the house or flat in which they live. We want to ensure that that happens as quickly as possible, which is why we want the investment to be tied clearly to that condition and why we will continue to work to secure that objective. We believe that the GHA remains committed to the objective, too.
Does the First Minister share my view that recent press reports about difficulties with local management of service contracts on behalf of the GHA have concluded inaccurately and unnecessarily that there is a doubt over the commitment on the part of the GHA, the Parliament and the Labour-led Executive to community ownership? Does he agree that, frankly, the press have got their conclusion wrong?
The important point is that, this week, through our actions and words, we must clarify the position—as I have done today—and ensure that we press ahead with the work to secure improvements as quickly as possible for the people of Glasgow. I know that the new member for Glasgow Cathcart was centrally involved in that achievement for the people of Glasgow and that he will welcome the investment as it transpires. We want the investment to be democratic and to involve people in their future. We are sure that that will take place.
Fresh Talent Initiative
To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Executive has had with the Commission for Racial Equality in Scotland regarding the fresh talent initiative. (S2F-1900)
Fresh talent is our initiative to retain Scottish talent and to attract hard-working, skilled people from around the world to live in Scotland. It is supported by integration programmes that have been praised by others. I had a positive meeting with the Commission for Racial Equality last year, at which it indicated that it sees Scotland as a leading example in Europe in relation to the initiative. We agreed that fresh talent is a showcase to demonstrate how a small nation can be welcoming and meet Europe's biggest challenge.
The First Minister will be aware of the concerns that the CRE has expressed about the initiative and about the integration and retention of immigrants in Scotland. Is he aware of an integration strategy and, if so, where is it, who has been consulted on it and will it cover the fresh talent initiative? Will the CRE be consulted and, if not, why not?
I do not recognise the picture that Sandra White continually tries to portray of integration in Scotland and the actions and strategies not just of the Executive but, as important, of Glasgow City Council, Strathclyde police and a host of other agencies. In Scotland, particularly in Glasgow, we see some of the best examples of integration, not just in the United Kingdom, but in the whole of western Europe. Tragic circumstances in Sighthill in Glasgow a few years ago led to the death of an asylum seeker, but the community as well as the agencies responded positively. The strategies that are being implemented are effective, which is one reason why Scotland is now recognised as one of the most welcoming places for people to come to.
Everyone acknowledges that we need integrated and cross-cutting support strategies for people who come to live and work in Scotland. However, we should not forget that many people will want to live and work in rural areas, so we should pay attention to how we deliver support in those areas. That is much more difficult, but it is very necessary.
I welcome Nora Radcliffe's important, sensible and constructive point. I can assure her that, as recently as last week, I had extensive discussions with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in Canada, where the Government is facing exactly the same challenge. The vast majority of recent immigrants to Canada have tended to move to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. However, the provinces in Canada—especially the large rural provinces—are increasingly encouraging more people to move into their areas and are facing exactly those challenges of integration. We have something to learn from them and we intend to maintain close contact with them as their programmes develop.
Does the First Minister agree that measures to attract fresh talent to Scotland and measures to integrate immigrant communities will require different solutions in different areas? Will he join me in welcoming the establishment of the ethnic minority employment and training service in Fife, as part of the Fife race equality partnership? That partnership has real targets for getting people into jobs or training. Will he also welcome the booklet that I passed to his office this morning, which was produced by the Red Cross in Glasgow with support from the Scottish Executive? Will he undertake to continue to support such innovative and locally based solutions to integration?
I thank Christine May for providing me with a copy of that booklet, which is an excellent example of the kind of information that should be made available. [Interruption.] SNP members are expressing concern, but they should be pleased about such initiatives and should not be angry or upset or moaning or complaining or displaying any of the usual sort of behaviour that we hear from them. They should be pleased, because the booklet represents a good approach. It welcomes people to Glasgow and gives them the sort of relevant information that they would want. Glasgow can be a good example for other parts of Scotland and, indeed, other parts of the United Kingdom and Europe.
Prisons (Overcrowding)
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will tackle increased overcrowding in prisons. (S2F-1901)
The best way of reducing prison numbers in the long term is, of course, to reduce crime and reoffending. However, we need prisons as a deterrent and as places of rehabilitation to achieve that goal. We have introduced more effective ways of working both in prisons and in the community to reduce reoffending. We will implement more of our measures when we pass the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill this afternoon.
Is the First Minister aware of the latest Executive figures for all custodial sentences handed down in 2003? Of those sentences, 54 per cent were for less than three months and 21 per cent were for less than 60 days. That contributed to the large numbers in our prisons. Does he agree that reliance on such short sentences is unwelcome and acts against serious rehabilitation programmes for individuals and the effectiveness of those programmes for our communities? Will he support an increase in community disposals, especially from our district courts? If the Sentencing Commission for Scotland does not go far enough on the matter, will the Labour-led, Liberal-driven Executive go further?
That was very fly. Mr Purvis had me nodding there, right up until the last few words. I welcome his inventive approach to questions.
Does the First Minister realise than one factor that contributes to overcrowding in prisons in the west of Scotland is the lack of spaces in open prisons? Some prisoners who should be in open prisons are still locked up in other prisons. What is he doing to increase the number of places in open prisons in the west of Scotland?
We have been increasing the number of places in open prisons. I hope that, unlike some of his colleagues, Alex Neil will support us as we bring forward further proposals for new prisons in the months ahead.
I remind members that the President of Malawi will address the chamber at 1 o'clock.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time