Plenary, 13 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, June 13, 2002

Official Report 762KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S1F-1964)

I take this opportunity to wish Mr Swinney a happy birthday—I believe that it is his birthday today.

Aw.

No singing, please.

I do not intend to discuss that with the Prime Minister, however.

I will next meet the Prime Minister at the British-Irish Council tomorrow in Jersey, where Iain Gray and I will propose that all the Governments that are involved in the council should meet to discuss the development of enterprise education across the Administrations concerned.

I thank the First Minister for the birthday greetings. I am sorry to tell him that today is not my birthday. Neither am I 37, as The Scotsman alleged this morning. My advice to the First Minister is not to believe the rubbish that he reads in the newspapers.

I have a quote for the First Minister:

"the juvenile courts system in England is a disaster. Even with fast tracking, it is an absolute disaster, and they look with considerable envy at the hearings system, even with its flaws. So, to suggest that courts are going to be the solution is not the answer."

Is that the view of the Government?

It is wrong of Mr Swinney to take out of context a comment that was made this morning. Not only was the comment clarified immediately afterwards, but it has since been clarified on the BBC by the Deputy Minister for Justice, who is responsible for youth crime issues. Moreover, Mr Swinney was sitting in the chamber when Dr Simpson again clarified it in answer to question 8 earlier this afternoon.

It is quite clear that the development of youth courts in Scotland is an option that we should look at to deal with the serious problems of young offenders in Scotland. The Cabinet is currently considering that option and we intend to consider it thoroughly.

Is it not a basic point that we should be able to take seriously what ministers say to us in Parliament on important debates about youth crime? The First Minister talks about immediate clarification. However, the usual page of spin from the Labour Administration was shuffled out to us during the lunch break. It says:

"Dr Simpson was in no way inferring that the English system was inappropriate (ie. a disaster)".

It is fair to say that he did not infer that it is a disaster—he said that it is "an absolute disaster".

We have had strategy after ministerial review after strategy after working group, but the problem of youth crime has not gone away. When will the First Minister speak clearly on youth crime and when will his ministers follow his direction? There has been precious little evidence of that today.

We will outline our plans to tackle youth crime when we said that we would—after the conclusion this month of the work of the sub-group that we established specifically to tackle many of the current issues on our streets. Those issues are deadly serious—they may amuse Mr Swinney, but they are taken very seriously by communities throughout Scotland. When a minister clarifies—as he did only half an hour ago—the Executive's position in relation to youth courts, I hope that members will take him at his word, as they should.

The First Minister asks me to be patient and to wait for the response of the review group. I have here a list of the review groups that the Labour Administration has set up since 1997; despite them, we are no further forward in resolving the problems of youth crime in our society.

The First Minister wants to know how seriously I take youth crime. At least I bothered to be in the chamber for the debate on youth crime this morning and at least I bothered to visit a public meeting in my constituency on Tuesday, at which people voiced their concern about the Government's lack of action.

We have had two flagship initiatives on youth crime from the First Minister—jail the parents, which was proposed by the First Minister and dumped by Cathy Jamieson, and youth courts, which were proposed by the First Minister and thrown into chaos by Richard Simpson. When will the First Minister start to listen to the people of Scotland and deliver real action on youth crime?

This First Minister is absolutely determined to deliver action on youth crime and we will do so. That action will build on the already successful work that is under way across Scotland in project after project and scheme after scheme. Action is being taken to ensure that young people are given an opportunity to mend their ways and become better adults.

There is a problem in our youth justice system in the way in which it addresses the middle teenage years. The children's hearings system is not coping and the adult courts are turning young offenders into permanent adult offenders. That problem needs to be tackled. It is right that the Administration should consider every option that is available to us to ensure that the problem is tackled.

Mr Swinney might want to raise the issue today to distract from the problems that he is having with his party. However, that will not work. He will not have to be patient, because there will be action. That action will be swift, because I lead my party, whereas he just moans about his.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he plans to raise. (S1F-1959)

I plan to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland next week.

I suspect that, when the First Minister and the secretary of state meet, they might discuss youth crime, which was the subject of the previous exchange and this morning's debate. This morning, I asked the Deputy Minister for Justice which categories of offences committed by under-16s are referred to the children's reporter. At the top of the list is assault, followed by breach of the peace and vandalism. The list also includes robbery, serious assault and rape. Not one of those offences is specifically excluded from the pilot schemes in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which will extend the children's hearings system to include 16 and 17-year-olds. As his ministers were unwilling to give me an answer this morning, I ask the First Minister to give me a categorical assurance that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will be amended specifically to exclude all offences of that nature from the proposed extension.

I suspect that Mr McLetchie is, rather worryingly, trying to mislead the public of Scotland on this issue. That is unfortunate. The list that he talked about this morning is a list of offences that are currently referred to the children's reporter when they are committed by under-16s. As he knows, the vast majority of those cases are not referred to children's hearings, but are dealt with in the courts, as they should be. I give him a cast-iron guarantee that the list of offences for the pilot schemes and the guidance to procurators fiscal will come from the Lord Advocate and his office, because it is right and proper under Scots law that politicians should not tell procurators fiscal what to do.

I also give David McLetchie a cast-iron guarantee that, if I thought that the list would include serious offences such as murder, rape or serious assault, I would not vote for the provision during the passage of the bill. As the Deputy First Minister and I have said consistently, the provision relates to minor offences and to those that would be dealt with more effectively in the children's hearings system. It is not about serious offences and we would not vote for it if we thought that it was.

The solution is quite simple. That position should be made clear in the bill and in the regulations that can be made under the bill. Why does the First Minister draw back from doing that?

The list of offences to which I referred this morning relates to some of the 26,000 offences that are referred to the children's hearings system under the present system when they are committed by 15-year-olds. That is the reality. Assault, robbery, breach of the peace, vandalism and more are referred to the children's hearings system under the present system, which the First Minister wants to extend.

The First Minister is in complete and utter disarray on the issue and is at odds with his ministers. When Richard Simpson said this morning that the First Minister's youth courts idea would be a disaster, was he speaking for the Executive or for himself? Are the youth courts still on the agenda or are they dead in the water? If they are on the agenda, will the First Minister seek the resignations of the two ministers with responsibility for justice who clearly have no confidence in them?

Let us deal with the truth first. If Mr McLetchie checks the Official Report, he will see that Richard Simpson did not say, "The youth courts that we are considering are a disaster." It is rubbish to suggest that that is the case. As he, Cathy Jamieson and Jim Wallace have said clearly in recent weeks, youth courts are one of the options that the Cabinet committee is considering. The committee will reach its conclusions by the end of the month and we will report them to Parliament, as I guaranteed at our meeting in Aberdeen.

Mr McLetchie gave the reason why we need to examine youth courts. [Interruption.] The SNP does not take the issues seriously. We know that already. We need to consider options such as youth courts precisely because of the important issue that Mr McLetchie identified—the number of youngsters in their mid-teenage years who commit serious offences and the lack of public confidence in the ability of the children's hearings system to deal with them. SNP members would prevent us from doing so. They sit and laugh at the suggestion. It is not funny when a 15-year-old is involved in a rape. That needs proper action; it needs to be tackled. We will ensure that that happens.

The First Minister is in trouble.

Does the First Minister agree—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the question.

If Ms Cunningham could take part in proceedings in the chamber, rather than the circus—

Order. Mr Fitzpatrick, please leave the chamber to me. Ask the question.

On the representations that Mr McLetchie has made, does the First Minister agree that it is important to consider the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 that guarantee the independence of the Lord Advocate concerning decisions on prosecution? Will he confirm that nothing in the proposals in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill departs from that position and that any representations made that the bill so departs are what, in legal circles, we used to call drivel?

I have already made my position clear. I would not support the proposal if I thought that it would apply to serious offences. If there is any suggestion that it might be so used, I will not vote for it and neither will Jim Wallace. We have made that position clear. The proposal is in the bill to deal with specific offenders who can be dealt with more effectively by another means than by the one by which they are dealt with at present. We stand by that proposal unanimously.

It is a shame that the SNP ridicules the independence of our legal system, which is very important indeed in Scotland. I do not intend—

The First Minister should just sit down.

The SNP is heating up in its cauldron today. The cauldron is getting a bit hot before the weekend. At least there is a full turnout today. [Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the answer.

The independence of the aspects of the Scottish legal system that we are talking about is important. It would be wrong for politicians to start to direct procurators fiscal on the way in which they handle individual cases.

---

Education (Public-private Partnerships)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will consider a review of public-private partnerships in education following the Accounts Commission for Scotland report published this week. (S1F-1974)

I welcome the Accounts Commission report. It recognises the important role that PPP has to play in delivering a high-quality learning environment for Scottish children. We are always determined to improve methods of delivery and to learn from best practice. The report helps us to do just that.

I am pleased that the First Minister acknowledges the positive conclusions of the report, most notably that PPP has delivered real benefits and that providers are providing new schools reliably and without significant cost changes for councils. The First Minister is probably aware that a number of education authorities—including that in South Lanarkshire—have submitted education PPP bids, which demonstrates their determination to provide first-class education facilities. Will he assure me that the Executive is still actively considering those bids? Will he give an indication of when decisions will be announced?

Decisions will be announced as soon as possible. I give an absolute assurance that the Executive is still positively considering the proposals. One of the remarkable factors is how many bids there are and how much difficulty we have had in ensuring that the quantity of bids that have been submitted can be fitted into the available budget.

I believe that the proposals are important for the future of Scottish education. They are about pupils and their education and so are more important than the issues that members of the nationalist party are raising about the funding mechanisms.

Just this week, a secondary school head teacher in Glasgow said that he has

"second to none … facilities and ICT technology … It is a massive, massive boost to the morale of children, of teachers and it can only significantly improve attainment."

That is what members in the chamber are meant to be about.

I note that is not just Tom McCabe, the member for Hamilton South, who supports his local council's proposals. A member from the Highlands—the member for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber—said in a letter about the Highland Council bid:

"I would be grateful if you could let me know the outcome of the bid and whether the Executive will support it. I would urge that this be done".

It is clear that Fergus Ewing supports the Highland Council bid, although he might be a bit dismayed to learn that, this morning—[Interruption.] I do not think that the member is in the chamber. [Members: "He is here."] No—I am looking for Michael Russell. Despite his absence from the chamber, Michael Russell managed to put out a statement today calling for the cancellation of the full public-private partnership programme for Scotland's schools. That would lead to hundreds of schoolchildren throughout Scotland not having modern and refurbished facilities. It would be entirely wrong for the Parliament to go down that road. Michael Russell and other nationalist MSPs will pay a heavy price for that statement at next year's election.

If there is a choice to be made between having a school and having no school, the SNP recognises that there is only one show in town. [Interruption.]

Order. I want to hear the question.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Does the First Minister's apparent love for the private finance initiative as a method of financing public sector developments prove the truth of what Peter Mandelson said of the Labour party earlier this week, when he stated:

"We are all ‘Thatcherite' now"?

I am certainly not a Thatcherite, but I remember who brought the Thatcherites in in the first place. I tell Mr Ewing that I will not forget that in a hurry.

Let me read out another part of Fergus Ewing's letter:

"I am writing to urge you to support a scheme whereby this investment can be released to upgrade schools."

Mr Ewing is quite clear on the issue, but so was Mr Russell, when he said that we should

"call a halt to the pending announcement."

Mr Russell says that we should call a halt to modernising Scotland's schools. He is not fit to be a shadow education minister, never mind a minister.

---

Congestion Charging

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive supports the introduction of congestion charging in Scotland's cities. (S1F-1968)

Yes, where there is local demand for such a scheme. That is why we introduced provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 to enable councils to introduce road user charging where they believe that it will reduce local congestion and improve public transport.

Will the First Minister assure me, and, more important, the people of the north-east of Scotland that they will not have to fund the plans of the north-east Scotland transport partnership—including the plans for a western peripheral route round Aberdeen—through congestion charging?

As I said, that matter will be considered in the light of local demands or requests for such a scheme. The transport needs of the north-east of Scotland are important—ministers have made that clear on a number of occasions—and complex, but they do not just involve the possibility of a bypass around the city. It might have escaped Mr Adam's notice, but the prospect of building a bypass will not help anyone to get into the centre of the city more quickly, because the bypass will go round the centre of the city. That might be a novel concept, but it is true. One does not need to be a mathematician to work it out.

The transport needs of Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland are important and they require proper strategic planning and resourcing, which is exactly what we are involved in achieving with NESTRANS. If Brian Adam is opposed to congestion charging in Scotland's cities, I suggest that he change the SNP manifesto for the next election, because the party's 1999 manifesto supported the scheme.

Does the First Minister agree that any proposals for congestion charging in Edinburgh must meet two criteria? The first is that no charging regime can be put in place unless the current consultation exercise, which was launched yesterday and which covers the whole of the south-east of Scotland, demonstrates clear public support for such a scheme. The second is that a range of improvements to the public transport infrastructure in and around Edinburgh must be in place well in advance of any charging regime, so that the consumer will have real choice between paying to take the car and using a modernised, integrated public transport scheme.

I agree that both those criteria must be met. The City of Edinburgh Council is to be congratulated on extending its consultation beyond the city boundaries. It is right and proper that it should do so. We should give credit where credit is due. For a number of years, the City of Edinburgh Council has been trying to make the required improvements to Edinburgh's transport systems. Improvements have been made and, in recent weeks, the new crossrail system has been put in place. The City of Edinburgh Council is to be congratulated on that and we will help it to take those issues forward in the years to come.

Before I conclude question time, I inform members that today's First Minister's question time represents a record for the number of members who were not called. Frankly, that is because of the noise. The less noise there is, the more members will get to ask questions. I hope that I can make that appeal as we approach an election.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During a supplementary question, Phil Gallie seriously misrepresented the position of Dundee City Council. He said that it was ghettoising anti-social tenants. Will you advise me on how I can use the standing orders of the Parliament to point out that the unit in Dundee is smack bang in the middle of mainstream housing and is designed specifically to reintegrate anti-social tenants into mainstream housing, which is the opposite of Tory ghettoisation?

You are asking for my advice on standing orders. I am conscious that you were one of the many members to whom I referred when I spoke of members not being called. All that I can ask you to do is to try again, but not to use points of order to do so.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I am sorry. We cannot continue question time with points of order. Is your point of order on a different issue?

It is a different point of order.

Okay.

It concerns the point that you made about the number of questions that were asked during question time. You referred to the noise, but I respectfully ask you to consider the amount of time that the First Minister took to respond to each question. Perhaps therein lies the problem.

I agree that it would be commendable if ministerial answers were shorter. However, they become longer when there is noise and interruption and that is the point that I am making.