Plenary, 09 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, January 9, 2003

Official Report 648KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I thank the First Minister for the good wishes and sympathy that he has expressed to my dear colleague Winnie Ewing and her family.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-2377)

Cabinet discusses issues of importance to the people of Scotland. In the coming weeks we will discuss health, sea fisheries and higher education and—of course—Cabinet will receive regular reports on preparations by the security authorities and emergency services, given the continuing threat of terrorist activity throughout the United Kingdom.

On Sunday, the First Minister boasted about the success of his crime policy when he said that cases cleared up by the police are at the highest level since the war. As a consequence of that record police clear-up rate, are prosecutions and convictions for those crimes up or down?

Different prosecution levels in different areas are either up or down, but what is important is that we ensure—as we have been working hard to do, particularly over the past 18 months—that court reforms and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service reforms are in place to secure greater levels of conviction, as well as faster and more accurate convictions and a better service for victims. Those are the vital priorities. They are widely recognised throughout Scotland and they are now having an impact.

Let me help the First Minister out with the answer, which is clear from what he has just said. In nearly every category, the number of prosecutions and convictions is down. In drugs, in 2001, there were 6,500 more drug offences cleared up by the police than in 1997. However—astonishingly—over the same period, there were 1,500 fewer prosecutions and 1,300 fewer convictions. Does the First Minister agree that to boast about record levels of police clear-up rates when crime is rising and the number of prosecutions and convictions is falling is simply dishonest?

I would like to make two points about that. First, I have already said that the reforms since 2001—which are being brought in in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and in the courts—will increase conviction levels, secure a more efficient and effective service and deliver better for victims.

Secondly, it is just not acceptable to come here week after week and selectively quote statistics, whether on crime, on health, on the economy or on education. In the past few weeks, the SNP's education spokesperson has said attainment levels in Scottish schools are going down when they are going up. The SNP health spokesperson said the number of consultants in Scotland is going down when, in fact, it is going up. Today, we have heard Mr Swinney making accusations about crime, and the SNP's accusations this week about health service administrators were, to be frank, shameful, selective and completely misleading. If he is going to come to the chamber and quote statistics, John Swinney should be honest and quote them accurately.

I think that we have touched a raw nerve. The First Minister did not know the answer and now he wants me to—[Interruption.] I am working my way round the chamber. Do not worry; I will finish Duncan McNeil off in a second.

The First Minister asks me not to be selective about statistics, so I will not be. The Government's own figures show that, since 1997, there have been 25,000 more crimes cleared up by the police, but they also show that there have been 8,000 fewer prosecutions and 7,000 fewer convictions. Those are not selective statistics; they are all the statistics. There are higher levels of crime, fewer criminals going through the courts and fewer criminal convictions. Does the First Minister accept that boasting about cases that have been cleared up when prosecutions and convictions are falling is just another attempt—like the waiting list con—to con the people of Scotland?

Yet again, the member uses statistics selectively; that is simply unacceptable. Mr Swinney is trying to hide behind the facts that not only are police numbers at their highest-ever level in Scotland, but clear-up rates are at their highest level since the war and reforms are going through our courts and fiscal service that will deliver not merely the current good rate of convictions, but an even better rate in the future. The Parliament and the Executive have done more to look after victims in Scotland, bring in new laws and put victims first in the prosecution service than any Parliament has done previously. That is a very good record for a young Parliament, and it is a record that will get much better as other reforms come through in the future.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S1F-2384)

My first meeting of the new year with the Secretary of State for Scotland will take place later this month.

At that meeting, I hope that the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland will discuss the report by one of the Prime Minister's top advisers that says that the extra money that is going into the health service in England will not improve the service for patients. We are all too familiar with such a situation in Scotland; people are already paying higher taxes to fund the health service, yet waiting lists and waiting times are longer, there are shortages of doctors and nurses, there are more hospital-acquired infections and there are still mixed-sex wards in our hospitals. Is not it about time the First Minister acknowledged that pouring more taxpayers' money into the health service without making the real reforms that he is unwilling to make will simply not work?

We are hearing from a party that yesterday voted down a reform of the fire service that would deliver the efficiencies that the member is talking about. [Interruption.]

Order.

Every week, we come to the chamber and hear pious words from the Tory party about efficiency in the public sector, yet when it gets a chance to vote for such a proposal, it does not have the guts to do so. That is what the Tory party is all about in Scotland.

On the health service, like Mr Swinney's statistics, Mr McLetchie's statistics are untrue. There are more doctors, nurses, consultants and operations and more people are being treated—those are facts in respect of the health service in Scotland.

However, the situation is not yet good enough. There need to be better and more efficient ways of working. More nurses need to carry out the work that doctors used to do, more general practitioners need to carry out the work that consultants used to do and more people should be treated in their local area rather than in hospital beds. That is the right way forward for the health service. It is the direction in which we are heading and the journey that we are on. We will see that journey through.

If the First Minister had some respect for parliamentary process, we would have been happy to consider yesterday's proposal—indeed, we made it clear at the time that we supported the proposal in principle. The fact that there was an attempt to abuse the processes of the Parliament led to the amendment's deserved defeat.

The First Minister's answer on the health service demonstrates that there is a clear difference of approach between the Conservatives and the Executive and that the public deserve a proper debate on such issues in the coming months. In that context, I was interested to read just before Christmas that the First Minister is apparently unwilling to participate in television debates with other party leaders during the forthcoming election campaign. From yesterday's events, we know that the First Minister and the Scottish Executive are not terribly keen on proper parliamentary scrutiny, but it seems that he is not too keen on public scrutiny either. In 1999, when Mr Donald Dewar was Secretary of State for Scotland, he was prepared to engage in such debates in the first Scottish Parliament elections. Why will the First Minister not engage in such debates in 2003? Is he feart?

I am certainly not feart, nor will I take any lessons from the Tories about the Parliament. You did not want the Parliament and you still say that you would vote against it if you had the opportunity to do so again. We created and defended the Parliament and the two partnership parties will take it forward.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In addressing the Parliament, should not the First Minister recognise that if he uses the word "you", he is addressing the Presiding Officer?

That is true, but I am afraid that a number of members do that. They should try not to do so.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

I have not ruled out anything for the Scottish parliamentary election. What will be important in that election is that we reach a situation in which people discuss the real policies, real choices and real challenges that face Scotland, and that we move away from the negative sniping and party-political nonsense that we hear week in, week out from the nationalists and the Tories in the chamber.

Real issues face Scotland. Real issues face Scotland's health service, real issues face our education service—such as the need to drive up standards in our schools—and real issues face us about growing Scotland's economy. Those challenges face us in the years to come. The election campaign this year should be about those challenges and not about the negative nonsense that we hear week in, week out from yourselves.

Not from me.

---

Inverclyde Electronics Industry (Job Losses)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive will take to minimise the impact of job losses in the Inverclyde electronics industry on workers, their families and the wider economy and community. (S1F-2391)

I regret the job losses that were announced this week in Duncan McNeil's constituency. We are ensuring that immediate support is given to the workers who are affected, under our well-respected and very effective partnership action for continuing employment framework. There is a good future for the electronics industry in Inverclyde and in Scotland as a whole. We will continue to position Scotland's manufacturing industry higher up the value chain by investing in skills and research.

I welcome the First Minister's response. Does he agree that the relief that we all feel that the worst of the speculation about IBM in Greenock did not come to pass should not mask the fact that hundreds of workers from another two Inverclyde companies—Fullarton Computer Industries (Gourock) Ltd and Clairemont Electronics Ltd—lost their jobs on Monday? I am glad to hear the First Minister say that those workers need our urgent help and assistance. Does he agree that we need to show that the smart successful Scotland strategy can work in areas such as Inverclyde? Can we be assured that the Scottish Executive will work in partnership with the local authority and other agencies to broaden, strengthen and modernise our local economy?

The smart, successful Scotland strategy is as relevant for Inverclyde—if not more so, given the area's recent history—as it is for most other parts of Scotland, given the challenges of higher than average unemployment in Inverclyde and the opportunities that exist in the area, where workers have in recent years adapted to new skills, new technologies and new challenges. The area can have a positive future if we tackle the industries that are based there and the image of the area and its promotion locally and internationally.

It is also important that we have a strong economy on which to base that work. The marks of a strong economy are that there is stability and that opportunities exist to change and develop in the way that Scotland's economy is currently doing. In the past two years, we have seen significant blows to the Scottish economy that would have had a dramatic impact if we were back in the boom and bust of the 1980s. The reality has been that, to use the example of West Lothian, 95 per cent of the workers who were affected by closures have got jobs and are back in the workplace. That sort of change is achieved through meeting challenges head-on, through securing new opportunities for people and through the lifelong learning opportunities that deliver what is vital for us today. We need real and practical solutions rather than slogans; we certainly do not want to go back to the days of boom and bust that existed in the 1980s.

I will ask the First Minister two specific questions. First, will he address the inflexibility of some of the training schemes that are intended to reskill and upskill workers who are made redundant? I refer in particular to the fact that workers must be unemployed for a long time before they qualify for training assistance.

Secondly, I draw the First Minister's attention to his own budget document, which rightly sets the objective of achieving the same level of research and development spending in Scotland as is achieved on average in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. The Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning pointed out in a recent reply that the additional yearly expenditure that will be needed to achieve that by 2006 is £750 million. How will the First Minister achieve that target, which is in his own budget document?

I welcome the member's regular and, I believe, genuine interest in matters economic. I confirm that the updated proposals that we will have for training will be included in the lifelong learning strategy that will be published by the Executive in the coming weeks.

It is vital that we get training right and that there exists the flexibility that will allow people to take up lifelong learning opportunities. It is also important that we get investment in our economy and that we get our enterprise development strategy right. Some members—most of them are in the chamber—have criticised us in recent weeks for diverting resources in the budget from April 2003 away from the administrative, behind-the-scenes activity in Scottish Enterprise and into transport and other vital infrastructure developments. I hope that Mr Neil will publicly oppose the Scottish National Party leader's proposal to take £100 million out of training and enterprise in Scotland to finance the proposals that he made in a newspaper article on Sunday. If Mr Neil is serious and genuine about training and enterprise in Scotland—I believe that he is—he should publicly oppose Mr Swinney and ensure that the £100 million is not taken out of, but kept in, Scotland's enterprise and training budgets.

Does the First Minister accept that—in what is a competitive sector—it is difficult for business in Scotland to be resilient when it pays higher rates than do businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom, when it must cope with a neglected transport infrastructure and when it is being surrounded by a cocoon of red tape? Will the First Minister confirm that the tax increases that his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, which will take effect from 1 April, will have a further adverse effect on job prospects in Scotland? Has he engaged with the business community to assess the impact of that tax on jobs?

I engage all the time with the business community in Scotland, which is one reason why the sector is publicly and regularly supportive of the strategy that we have outlined for a smart, successful Scotland. That consensus of support for the strategy for a smart, successful Scotland is a vital part of securing stability and a long-term strategy to ensure that the Scottish economy grows and that there are more opportunities in the future. A vital part of that is ensuring that we have a transport infrastructure that can deal with public transport, with private transport by road and with delivery mechanisms on those roads. We must ensure that we have transport systems that will help to grow the Scottish economy and help it to recover from the years of underinvestment for which the Conservative party was responsible, but which we are now reversing.

---

Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967 <br />(Release of Government Records)

To ask the First Minister what advice the Scottish Executive has received from officials about government records over 30 years old that have been, or will be, released in January 2003 under the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967. (S1F-2375)

The responsibility for the 3,442 files that were released in January lies with the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, the Scottish Executive was advised that they were to be released.

I am sure that the secretary of state will read all the documents.

Is the First Minister aware that among the revelations in the latest files was the news that the Prime Minister in the 1970s—Mr Heath—wanted to give Scotland control over our share of the £160 billion of oil revenues that have flowed to London in the thirty years since? Is he aware of the absurd fact that that opportunity was lost to Scotland because a Tory Secretary of State for Scotland blocked the policy, which would have been so clearly and massively beneficial to Scotland? Does he agree that the episode is a fine illustration of the cost to Scotland of political leaders who oppose the idea of the Scottish people gaining more control over their lives? Will he commit to doing what he can to fulfil his ambition—which he once espoused as a member of Scottish Labour action—for Scotland to have control of all of its financial resources?

Of course, Mr Wilson does not believe in Scotland and the Parliament having control over oil taxation; he believes in the Scottish economy and Scotland being entirely separate from the United Kingdom. He should be more honest about the policy that he proposes and supports, which would be disastrous for the Scottish economy and for the revenues that are available to the Parliament. [Interruption.]

Order. Let us have less noise—it just rules out other members' questions.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Mr Wilson should admit that Scotland's revenue deficit with the rest of the United Kingdom has been negative for more than 10 years. If the policies that he pursued were implemented, there would be a cost to the Parliament and to Scotland. There would be less money in Scotland for health, education, tackling crime and all the matters that we believe are more important than the ideology that he espouses.

---

Sentencing Policy (Weapons of Violence)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has any plans to strengthen sentencing policy in relation to weapons of violence. (S1F-2389)

Weapons of violence have no place in Scotland's communities and we keep under constant review the worrying situation regarding the use of knives. Firearms legislation is reserved, but we welcome any plans that will help to prevent the escalation of gun culture in Scotland. In particular we welcome the Home Secretary's plans, which were announced yesterday, to limit air guns and replica guns.

Does the First Minister agree that the tough proposals for minimum sentences that have been made by our Labour Home Secretary for those who are guilty of illegal possession of guns and other offensive weapons—which are closely associated with the drugs trade—are the safest form of crime prevention and protection of the public? Does he agree that that policy, together with the creation of a Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency by the Scottish Executive, the £100 million that has been put into the field to combat drug dependency, and the Executive's support of the regime of asset confiscation for drug dealers, constitutes a serious and real drugs policy as opposed to the candyfloss soundbites that come from the Opposition?

What loyal back benchers. [Laughter.]

It will be of interest to those who have the pleasure of watching First Minister's question time each week—either from the gallery or on television—to know that the Opposition finds the matter of guns and knives so frivolous and trivial as to make it a matter for jokes.

We should get the matter in perspective. The situation in Scotland in relation to guns is not as serious as the situation south of the border; it is important that we keep the matter in perspective. However, at the same time, one gun potentially wrongly used in Scotland is one gun too many. Just as Scotland led the campaign to ban handguns after the horrific massacre in Dunblane, we should also make it clear that we in Scotland will take tough action to deal with guns. We will do so not only in relation to drug culture, but anywhere on our streets, and we will deal with knives and other offensive weapons. I want to make it absolutely clear that we must ensure that the appropriate laws and resources are in place and that the community stands up and is counted. In Scotland, we want less violence, not more.