Plenary, 05 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, June 5, 2003

Official Report 675KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-42)

The Cabinet will discuss a number of important issues.

I am sure that it will, and this is one of them. On 9 January this year, the First Minister told me in Parliament that his reforms to the criminal justice system were having an impact in securing more and faster convictions. At the same time, thousands of criminal cases were being dropped because of delays and time bars. When the First Minister made his remarks in January, was he aware of the developing crisis? If he was, what did he do about it?

When I made my remarks in January, I was aware of what had happened prior to January and of the fact that the system was improving. It is important to state the facts on these occasions. There were not thousands of people missing trial in January, although there were over the past year, because of the introduction of a new computer system. That new system is vital. It will be state of the art and it will make a huge difference to the speed at which criminal trials take place, to the speed at which it is possible to make convictions and to the way in which the whole system works—from arrest to sentencing and beyond, the system will be joined up. That will not just make a difference to the capturing and conviction of offenders or people who are charged; ultimately, it will ensure that they do not reoffend in future.

The First Minister cannot have it both ways. He stood up in Parliament and said that his reforms were having an impact, and we all assumed that the situation was getting better. In fact, nearly 1,300 cases had been dropped due to delays in Hamilton; 2,500 cases had been dropped in Airdrie; and nearly 8,000 cases had been dropped in the city of Glasgow because of the impact of the First Minister's measures. If, as we are to believe, crime is the First Minister's top priority, how can that have happened and why did he do nothing about it, while telling Parliament that his reforms were having a successful impact?

That is simply not true. The reforms are having an impact and they were having an impact. If we listen accurately to independent people in the system, we will hear exactly what they say and will learn from that. We hear that the implementation of the new system caused a significant delay and led to 8,000 cases being dropped last year and to the increase that was identified this week. We were well aware of that. It was an impact of the implementation of the new system.

However, it is exactly because of the new system that delays are no longer taking place at the same level. The number of delays will consistently reduce and, in due course, there will be not just a return to previous levels but a much faster system of prosecution and conviction in our courts, which will be of benefit. That is already the case elsewhere in Scotland, and it will happen in Strathclyde when the current problems with the information technology system are finally worked through.

Let us pause for a moment. The First Minister has just told us that he knew about the matter, but did not think that it was worth telling Parliament about it until one of my colleagues lodged a parliamentary question in order to bring the information to the surface. If we are to listen to independent people on the issue, let us listen to a representative of the Scottish Police Federation. He spoke in the newspapers this morning of the despair among officers. He says:

"At one stage they were told not to dictate cases until four months after the incident had taken place."

There was an instruction to police officers to delay the judicial system.

Given the gravity of the situation, will the First Minister, who is so keen to listen to independent opinion, authorise HM chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland to investigate the situation and tell us exactly what has gone wrong?

We know what has gone wrong: the IT systems at Strathclyde police and at the procurator fiscal offices in that area were well out of date; they needed to be modernised and they needed to work together. When those systems do work together, they will be not only the best in Europe but among the best in the world. Representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were in this country recently, and congratulated us on the new system that is in place and on the difference that it will make. They said that they wished that it was in operation in parts of America.

That system will be what ensures that the whole system works more effectively, not the sort of nonsense that we heard this morning from the SNP's justice spokesperson, who suggested that the Crown Office should get its act together and ensure that the figures come down. We cannot send procurators fiscal into police offices to type reports in an effort to get the reports up to the procurator fiscal's office more quickly. The SNP's suggestion was a piece of nonsense.

The delays have been identified and are now coming down. We will end up with a system that not only works more quickly, but does so in the interests of victims. From beginning to end, the system will be more successful.

The First Minister is back to his usual definition of things getting better when, in fact, they are getting worse. The figures have got worse in the past 12 months, while the First Minister's reforms have been progressing. Why can the First Minister not simply own up to the fact that the Executive is not improving the justice system as quickly as it needs to be improved? When the First Minister tells the Parliament that he has had a great impact, he is talking a lot of nonsense.

When senior members of Strathclyde police and those who run our prosecution service say independently, as they did this morning, that the figures would have come down had it not been for the delay that the introduction of the new information technology system in Strathclyde caused, we should believe them, not call them liars. Then, we should ensure that the numbers stay down permanently in every part of Scotland so that victims get justice and those who need to be prosecuted are prosecuted properly and on time. That is exactly what this system promises and will deliver.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-47)

I speak regularly with the Prime Minister and discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will be as interested as Mr Swinney was in the issue of the court cases being dropped. Around 17,000 cases have been dropped this year, which is five times more than were dropped in 1997.

In response to Mr Swinney, the First Minister blamed the problem on the failures of a newly introduced computer system. Is that system the same one that, three years ago, Mr Wallace, then the Minister for Justice, told us would improve the prosecution system—the integration of Scottish criminal justice information systems project? Why has that system taken three years to roll out when, according to Mr Wallace, it was supposed to be making a difference by May 2000?

Will the First Minister also tell us what categories of crime are involved when decisions are made to drop cases because of the delays? I am sure that the public would be interested to know exactly what cases are not being prosecuted as a result of the delays that we have heard about today.

It is hard to respond to a question that contains so many inaccuracies.

It is an absolutely ludicrous assertion that a system that was announced in May 2000 would have been expected to start making a difference that month when it was not even operating in offices at that time, never mind two years later. The introduction of the system has been successful in most parts of Scotland. The one area in which it was not immediately successful and where, as a consequence, there have been delays is Strathclyde. That has led to a considerable rise in the number of cases not being proceeded with. That is to be regretted. It is not only disappointing but worrying to people in the Strathclyde area.

The situation that I have described is not the same as saying that Scotland is a lawbreakers' paradise. The nonsense that we heard from Mr Aitken this morning is the sort of irresponsible rubbish that will lead to people thinking that they can get off with serious crimes.

This morning, I received categorical assurances that the fiscals offices in the Strathclyde area, as elsewhere, will prioritise the serious cases to ensure that those that must go to court are dealt with first. As they will have done that in this case, I say to Mr McLetchie that his second point is wrong as well.

The fact of the matter is that 17,000 people are getting off scot-free. If that does not make Scotland a lawbreakers' paradise, I do not know what does, even if, as the First Minister alleges, the problem has come about purely as a result of systems failure.

I am not convinced that the matter is purely one of systems failure and I wonder whether the First Minister will consider the ways of improving the efficiency of our justice system that we suggested during the election campaign, such as the recruitment of additional police officers and procurators fiscal and the introduction of weekend and evening courts to reduce some of the backlogs that are resulting in cases being written off.

Given that the Scottish Executive is fond of setting targets for itself, and bearing in mind what the First Minister has said, will the First Minister give an undertaking to Parliament today to reduce the number of cases that are dropped as a result of systems failure to 1997 levels before the end of this session in 2007? In other words, 10 years on, will he finally get back to delivering the levels of efficiency that Labour inherited from the Conservatives?

I will give the member one crystal-clear guarantee: that the clear-up rate for crime in Scotland will not go down to the levels of 1997, when the Conservatives were last in power, and that it will be at least as high as it is today, because we will ensure that the system operates even more efficiently and effectively than it does at the moment. That needs to happen in a number of different ways. It cannot involve only one part of the system at any one time.

It is easy to criticise solutions as they are introduced. Action is needed on youth crime and on the children's hearings system. Action and new legislation are needed to tackle violent and serious offenders. We have already taken such action this year. Action is needed on parole and remission. The sentencing commission that we will establish will consider that issue. Action is needed on reoffending. The proposed correctional agency is one solution to that problem. Action is needed to modernise our courts. That is why we will not only modernise the high courts, but work reforms and modernisation through the whole system. Improvements in liaison between the procurators fiscal and the police are needed at local level. That is why we have reorganised the system in the past 18 months. We have increased the number of staff and the resources available to them to ensure that that happens. Action is also needed on antisocial behaviour.

Together those elements will make a difference in the Scottish criminal justice system. To describe Scotland today as a lawbreakers' paradise is irresponsible in the extreme. For the Conservative party to do that is an absolute disgrace.

I welcome the First Minister's comments about the need to modernise the judiciary. In view of the disgraceful decision this week by the appeal court to dismiss charges of culpable homicide against Transco following the deaths of four members of the Findlay family in my constituency, the First Minister should be aware that confidence in the Scottish judiciary is at an all-time low. What steps will the Scottish Executive take to restore some of that confidence? Furthermore, what steps will the Executive take to support my constituents and me in having this legal loophole closed, to ensure that big business is held accountable for its actions, in the same way as any of the rest of us would be, and that the deaths of four innocent people lying in their beds are never again described by a court in this land as irrelevant?

We all share the sense of disappointment that exists in Karen Gillon's constituency on this matter. It is important that I am cautious in responding to the member's question, as legal proceedings in relation to health and safety legislation are still under way and it is important that those proceedings are able to be brought to fruition in due course. It is also important that, if there is a loophole in Scottish law, we consider ways of dealing with that. If, after we have had a chance to examine the full outcome of the case to which Karen Gillon refers, we find that it is necessary and appropriate for us to take further action, we will do so.

---

Council Tax

To ask the First Minister what powers the Scottish Executive has to abolish the council tax and whether it will use these powers in view of comments made by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that the tax is regressive. (S2F-57)

I do not believe that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has made such comments, although I am happy to deal with that point if Mr Sheridan would like me to do so. I am also happy to confirm to him that local taxation, including the council tax, is a devolved issue, and that we have no plans to abolish the council tax.

That is a grave pity. The Scottish Socialist Party believes that the council tax is grotesquely unfair. A person such as the First Minister who receives a salary of £120,000 and lives in North Lanarkshire will pay only twice the sum that is paid by a hospital cleaner living in that area who has a salary of only £10,000. Can the First Minister defend a system under which he is 12 times better paid than a hospital cleaner but pays only twice as much council tax?

Any taxation system needs a range of taxes, including taxes on income, on inheritance and on property. As I said to Mr Sheridan last week or the week before, as a socialist, I believe that property taxation has a place in the system of government taxation in this country. I also believe that local taxation has a place.

Mr Sheridan supports a Scottish service tax, which would be uniform across Scotland and would take away from local authorities the right to raise their own revenue. I believe that that would be anti-democratic and that Mr Sheridan's policy is wrong. I believe that property taxation, including a reformed and improved council tax, has a place in the taxation system.

The First Minister wants to continue to defend the wealthy and the well paid, who pay a pittance of their salaries towards local services, while the low-paid workers and the pensioners of this country are left to carry the heaviest burden. Does the First Minister accept that a tax based on income is fairer than the unfair council tax? Will he do what his Executive partners said that they would do if they won power, which is to replace the council tax with a personal income-based tax?

I believe that within the system there is a place for a property tax and a much more significant place for income tax, which is why that is what we have. One reason why the current system of local government funding operates as it does is that we need to ensure that there is a contribution from national coffers and from the fairer income tax system to local services. However, we also need to ensure that there is a contribution at the local level.

Studies have consistently agreed with the conclusion of the Parliament's Local Government Committee in its 2002 report, which stated:

"The Committee shares the views of many of the witnesses that the Council Tax is sound, but that … properties need to be revalued on a regular basis."

The committee's report clearly stated that a Scottish service tax was not a good idea, as it would

"destroy local accountability for councils' spending decisions."

We need to make choices in this chamber. I believe that there is a place in this country for property taxation alongside income tax. I also believe that taking away from local authorities any ability to raise their own revenue would be fundamentally anti-democratic. Mr Sheridan's policy is wrong.

---

Online Pollution Register

To ask the First Minister how communities affected by pollution can make use of the new online pollution register. (S2F-59)

The new inventory provides easy access to information on emissions from industrial processes for people living in the communities where sites are located. Access to such information is vital if we are to secure environmental justice for local communities across Scotland.

I welcome the publication of the information. The First Minister will recall that he visited the landfill site at Greengairs in my constituency. Is the First Minister aware that the site, which is operated by Shanks Waste Services, is listed as seventh in the top 10 of Scotland's worst toxic polluters? Does the First Minister agree that significant steps must be taken to ensure that the views of local residents are more effectively taken into account during the planning process, so that we can prevent communities such as Greengairs from being blighted by such high levels of pollution in future?

I am not so sure that it is entirely accurate to turn the information that has been published about individual sites into a league table of emissions as Karen Whitefield has suggested.

At the same time, we all recognise the particular difficulties with landfill waste. That is why, in this session, the Government has established clear targets for reducing the level of municipal waste in Scotland that goes to landfill from around 90 per cent to 30 per cent. We want to ensure not only that more municipal waste is recycled and composted but that we minimise waste production in the first place. Those are important targets for us as part of our environmental policies, in which we are investing more money than ever before. We must ensure that communities have a greater role in planning decisions, but we also need to sort out the way in which we in Scotland deal with our waste.

---

Scottish Water

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is satisfied with the performance of Scottish Water. (S2F-40)

In Scotland, the provision of water services must become much more efficient. Communities deserve better quality at a reasonable cost. We will monitor closely the performance of the new organisation, Scottish Water, as it works towards that objective.

I am not sure that the First Minister's response will bring much comfort to the many small businesses in Scotland that have seen water bills rise this year by 200 per cent, 300 per cent and up to 500 per cent in some cases. If the First Minister is serious about the Executive's stated aim that

"Growing the economy is our top priority"

why does he tolerate a situation in which some Scottish businesses are paying 16 times more in water charges than the equivalent businesses in England?

We have a serious problem with Scottish water services and that is a direct result of years of past under-investment. In order to improve the quality of Scottish water and achieve the efficiencies that will ensure that any increases in costs are kept to a minimum, it is critically important not only that we invest, but that Scottish Water's management makes the efficiencies that will improve the organisation's performance.

Investing more money and driving efficiencies through the organisation will mean tough decisions. When we debate such issues in the chamber, I hope that we will remember that both those objectives must go hand in hand. In that way, we will benefit not only Scottish Water's business customers, but domestic customers and householders.

That ends questions to the First Minister.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have previously complained that more than half of First Minister's question time is regularly taken up by questions from party leaders. The situation now seems to be getting worse instead of better. Today, more than three-quarters of the time was taken up by questions from party leaders. Will you please in future give more opportunities to ordinary back-bench members?

Members will be aware that, after Mr McLetchie's question, I now allow one or two questions, which is specifically intended to create a space for back benchers. Once First Minister's question time increases to 30 minutes—as I hope it will—there will be more opportunities for questions from back-bench members.