Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 14, 2009

Official Report 692KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1686)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland with a particular focus on jobs and economic recovery. As we all saw from the unemployment figures this week, the position in the economy remains exceedingly serious. It would be foolish indeed to predict an early upturn. However, there have been some good indications in some of the recent statistics. For example, figures that were published last week show that new orders in the construction sector in Scotland rose in the first quarter of 2009 whereas, unfortunately, those south of the border fell by 9 per cent.

This afternoon, the Parliament will spend time debating Scotland's relationship with the United States of America and Canada. Back on 23 January, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice did his bit by visiting Canada. The visit coincided with the knife crime summit here at home. Does the First Minister think that his Cabinet Secretary for Justice's time was better spent in Canada than at the knife crime summit in the Parliament?

As Iain Gray knows very well, Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Community Safety, was at the knife crime summit, where he talked about the substantial action that is being taken against knife crime in Scotland. For example, more than 2,000 knives have been taken off the streets of Scotland since May 2007 and there are now tougher prosecution guidelines. There is also the action of Strathclyde Police's violence reduction unit that sees police officers in Scotland taking action day and daily to keep their communities safer.

All those things were, of course, discussed at the knife crime summit. The question is about the priorities of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Not everyone was sure that the visit to Canada was the top priority. We have secured, under freedom of information, an e-mail from one of the cabinet secretary's civil servants who was involved in planning his Canada trip and getting him slipped—relieved of parliamentary duties. It says:

"I am just a little concerned that after all the hassle"

that we have had

"getting him slipped we only have a few minor things for him to do on the Friday".

Friday was the very day of the knife crime summit and the e-mail was written less than two days before the trip. That Friday, the victims of knife crime were in the Parliament trying to ensure that others would not have to suffer the same pain and loss. Why on earth did the First Minister allow Mr MacAskill to skip that for a junket in Canada?

Victims of knife crime were at the summit, as were police officers and the responsible minister. The leader of the Opposition was not at the knife crime summit. Those who came together had an excellent discussion and analysis of how to tackle the scourge of knife crime in Scotland. The Government is taking forward a range of initiatives that include tougher sentences and getting knives off the streets. No one would doubt the determination of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on those matters.

Let us talk a bit about the violence reduction unit and the valuable work that is being done to crack the gang culture in Scotland. In 1997, there was no funding whatever for the unit; in 2006-07, there was £500,000. There was none under the Tories and very little under Labour and the Liberals, but there has been £1.8 million since the Cabinet Secretary for Justice took office and took action against violence in Scotland.

I thought that Mr MacAskill, as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, was the minister responsible for dealing with knife crime.

It is fair to say that, in the end, Mr MacAskill managed to fill some of his Friday in Canada: he made an official visit to a pub. It was the Duke of Somerset in Toronto, and he met Steve MacTavish, the clan chieftain of Toronto. He then got in a decent three hours' rest before his appointment with the "Great chieftain o' the puddin-race" at a Burns supper. He would have needed his rest because the organisers warned in the e-mails that, on arrival, he would be

"plunged instantly into a very crowded cocktail party".

No worries, though, because after the formalities

"the evening lapses into informal jollity. It's going to be fun."

For too many Scots, the word "plunge" evokes not cocktail crowds but death or injury by a blade. Mr MacAskill should have been at the knife crime summit. Will the First Minister apologise for the fact that his responsible minister chose jollity and junketing instead?

The Parliament should be ashamed of an Opposition leader who treats one of the most serious subjects in Scottish society in the way that he has done today.

The knife crime summit with the responsible minister was an excellent idea and brought people together, but it is about more than just one-off summits. The proposed Scottish sentencing council is designed to give victims of crime a voice for the first time throughout the judicial system in Scotland.

The knife crime summit was informed by the responsible police officers. Police officers in Scotland are able to attend such summits because, compared with the 16,234 officers in March 2007 and the 15,000 officers under the Tories, we now have 16,675 officers. Under this Government and its Cabinet Secretary for Justice, record numbers of police are keeping the streets and communities of Scotland safe from harm.

It is true that I was not at the knife crime summit. Mr Salmond was invited to the summit too, and he was not there either. I assure him that Labour members take the issue very seriously. Some 45 per cent of homicides in Scotland involve a blade, but 71 per cent of convicted knife thugs do not go to jail and 65 per cent of those who go to jail get less than six months—and the First Minister wants to set them free.

This is how seriously we take the issue: Labour believes that a person who carries or uses a knife should go to jail. The Tories believe that, too. If the First Minister agrees with us—right here, right now—then knife criminals will know that they are going to jail. It is his call. Will the First Minister support mandatory jail sentences for knife crime, so that we can deliver what the people of Scotland want?

Iain Gray should have said that Labour supports mandatory sentencing north of the border, where it is in opposition, but does not implement it south of the border, where it is in government. The Tories did not do so either when they were in office in Scotland.

In the sustained attempt to tackle knife crime in Scotland, 2,000 knives have been taken off the streets since May 2007, there are tougher prosecution guidelines, more knife carriers are in custody and sentences are tougher. The average length of sentence for carrying a knife increased from 161 days in 2006-07, when Labour was in office, to 217 days in 2007-08. The proposed sentencing council will reflect the views of victims of crime in Scotland—I hope that Iain Gray will be prepared to support the proposal.

At the Public Petitions Committee event at which the issue was discussed, the voices were heard of people who are in the front line of tackling knife crime, such as Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, of the violence reduction unit. He said:

"I've been a cop for 34 years. If I thought locking people up the first time they were carrying a knife and giving them four years in the jail would work I'd be your man."

He went on to say:

"Jail doesn't work, we need early intervention, restricting access to alcohol and knives."

Perhaps at some point Iain Gray will accept that somebody with 34 years of front-line experience in the police force, who is pioneering violence reduction initiatives in the west of Scotland, might know a little more about the issue than the Leader of the Opposition does.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I call Annabel Goldie to ask question 2.

I am sorry, Presiding Officer—I was reflecting on the First Minister's last answer, having failed to follow any of it.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1687)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future.

Knife crime has now reached epidemic proportions in Scotland. It is a contagion that blights every community in our country. Mr Gray's sudden interest in the issue would be a lot more convincing if Labour had done something about it in eight years of government—and if Mr Gray had said something about it in his conference speech. It is interesting that his new-found conversion comes after a Scottish Conservative proposal was published yesterday—46 minutes later, he is on the bandwagon. Where we lead, Mr Gray may, by all means, follow.

The Conservative proposal is to have a presumption of custody for anyone who carries or uses a knife, with a minimum sentence of two years. An exemption to that would be available to judges, but it would be granted only in the most exceptional of circumstances. We know that the First Minister likes to talk tough, but is he prepared to act tough and take action against these thugs? Will he support the Scottish Conservative proposal?

This subject is a bit more serious than the two Opposition parties battling for preference, wondering and working out who can be first to ask the question. Annabel Goldie is probably correct about Iain Gray's choice of subject today, in that it was designed to forestall her question, but I also think that Annabel Goldie's pre-release of her conference speech rather invited that initiative from Iain Gray. Can we just address the issue in terms of making Scottish society safe?

Annabel Goldie's question gave the game away. She said that there would be a presumption but, in exceptional circumstances, the judge would be able not to send people to jail. Is that too far away from what is being argued in relation to the proposed Scottish sentencing council? I will quote the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, when he wrote to the Public Petitions Committee on 2 December 2008:

"I believe that rather than pursue statutory mandatory or minimum penalties, it would be more appropriate for the Scottish Sentencing Council to consider the appropriate disposals for persons found carrying knives or other dangerous weapons in public and to produce guidelines on this. This will allow the sentencing judge to have flexibility in sentencing and would not restrict the independence of the judiciary. It will also ensure consistency and transparency in sentencing as well as allowing the views of the general public to be taken into account. Were the Sentencing Council to decide that there should be a presumption that an individual will go to prison if they are found carrying a knife unless there are strong mitigating factors, I would not be unhappy."

Can Annabel Goldie fully explain—apart from with rhetoric—the difference between her exemptions under special circumstances and that statement from the justice secretary?

If I were reduced to quoting the justice secretary as an authority on anything, I would be in trouble. We are talking about the political process sending out the toughest possible message to thugs, bullies and hooligans. That message is: take a blade outside and you will be going inside. When the public are crying out for that message and for protection and political leadership, why is the First Minister not only failing to deal with knife crime but supporting more automatic early release, more home detention curfews and abolishing prison sentences of six months or less? Why are we stuck in the Scottish National Party's soft-touch Scotland?

We have got to the soundbite at last. Annabel Goldie should be reminded that automatic early release was introduced by a Tory Government—and it is going to be ended by an SNP Government through a bill before Parliament.

I listen to Annabel Goldie's justice spokesman occasionally, as he bemoans the fact that more people are not in prison in Scotland. Of course, we all know that when the Tories were in office they did not build one prison in Scotland. I have listened to the same spokesman telling Scotland that it is disgraceful that only 60 per cent of fiscal fines are being paid. Yes, indeed it is disgraceful: that is why we are working to increase the number—but when the Tories introduced the policy only 40 per cent were paid. While 60 per cent is not good enough, it is a lot better than 40 per cent.

There is, however, something that Annabel Goldie and I can agree on and celebrate: not only have we had the furthest and largest drop in recorded crime in 25 years, we have the record number of 16,675 police officers on the street, protecting our communities, drug-busting across Scotland and keeping this country safe.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1688)

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Earlier, the First Minister mentioned the exceedingly serious nature of the economy. On Tuesday, we learned that 20,000 people in Scotland have lost their jobs in the past three months. This morning, BT announced that it will cut its workforce by 10 per cent worldwide. There are 8,500 BT jobs in Scotland—21,000 if one includes the businesses that depend on BT. What does the First Minister think the implications are for Scotland of BT's announcement?

The implications are extremely serious, as Tavish Scott rightly points out. This is one example of a number of significant job losses across the UK that will have a substantial impact on Scotland, and it is why the doubling of our ability to intervene in major redundancy situations is particularly welcome. It is why our acceleration of capital funding is welcome. It is why our acceleration of European funding is welcome. Everything the Government has been doing in terms of its budget and economic programme is designed to sustain and support tens of thousands of jobs across Scotland. That is why I hope and believe that I will have Tavish Scott's firm support in resisting the £500 million cut in the Scottish budget that threatens to cost another 9,000 jobs in Scotland.

BT has also said that it could relocate jobs from India. We know that we have in abundance the skills to take customer service and technology jobs back from India. BT centres in Dundee, Thurso, Alness, Aberdeen or Glasgow could be a base for them. Will the First Minister give one of his ministers the job of putting a compelling case direct to BT for such work to come to Scotland—jobs the country needs? Will the Government put a minister in charge of a team to make this pitch direct to BT?

That job will be taken forward by John Swinney as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth. It is an important task. I do not underrate in any sense the serious economic challenges that face our country. Ministerial intervention can be extremely important. I think it was Tavish Scott who called for ministerial intervention to secure the jobs in wind-tower building in the Mull of Kintyre. That was done and the number of jobs has doubled. Someone from his party called for ministerial action to secure the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry. That was done and that ferry service starts again next week. The Cumbernauld jobcentre is another example of ministerial intervention being effective in saving 900 jobs.

I do not think for a minute that ministerial intervention alone will always stop or turn around serious redundancy situations, but wherever ministerial intervention can help we will certainly do it—and in the case of BT, Mr Swinney has already indicated to me that he will be delighted to take it on. This Government will never be found wanting in defending and promoting Scottish employment.

You will be only too painfully aware, since it is in your constituency, Presiding Officer—as will the First Minister—of the proposed closure of Kirkcudbright creamery with the loss of 121 jobs. In the Galloway economy, 121 jobs is hugely significant and they will be very difficult to replace. Will the First Minister tell me what actions the Government proposes to take to support the workforce? Will he also say something about the significance of that proposed closure for the wider Scottish dairy industry?

Alasdair Morgan puts the point very fairly. Yesterday's announcement that Milk Link proposes to close its dairy with the loss of more than 120 jobs is serious news. The impact on directly affected employees and the producers who supply the dairy, and the wider impact on the economy, will be considerable.

Richard Lochhead has already spoken with the company, and there will be further discussions on what support can be given to mitigate the proposed job losses. Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland are already actively engaged, and a meeting with Milk Link is taking place today.

Richard Lochhead has also convened and will chair a dairy summit on 27 May, because there are wider issues across that industry in Scotland at present. The event provides an excellent opportunity for the dairy supply chain to come together to address the issues of concern. I am in no doubt that the Kirkcudbright situation will feature strongly in those discussions.

The First Minister will be aware of the two deaths in Orkney, and one death in Moray, as a direct result of Clostridium difficile. He will also be aware that there have been two further associated deaths. I am sure that he and all members in the Parliament will join me in offering our condolences to the families who have lost loved ones.

Last Friday, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to ask that the public inquiry into C difficile at the Vale of Leven hospital be extended to cover the Orkney cases. In light of the subsequent cases in Moray and the fact that I have today been contacted by a constituent who suggests that the problems at Dr Gray's hospital date back to December, will the First Minister extend the inquiry to cover the whole of Scotland?

Of course the entire Parliament and the Government joins Rhoda Grant in extending our condolences to the families and friends of those who have been affected by that dreadful condition.

The health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, will respond comprehensively to Rhoda Grant's letter. The terms of reference for the C difficile inquiry are being considered, but they must be discussed with the presiding judge at the inquiry. As Rhoda Grant will understand, the correct and proper way to do these things is to discuss the precise terms of reference with the judge.

---

Operation Algebra

To ask the First Minister what lessons can be learned from operation algebra. (S3F-1707)

I know that everyone here will want to acknowledge the pain felt by the victims—and their families—of those vile and sickening crimes. The main lesson is surely that offenders cannot escape justice but will be caught and that specialist investigators and prosecution teams working with international law enforcement partners is clearly the way forward in that area of work. The Parliament should pay tribute to our police and prosecutors, whose diligent and painstaking work tracked down those evil men and brought them to justice.

Another lesson is that we must keep arrangements for managing sex offenders under constant review. That is why, during the past two years, the Government has been taking a number of important measures. We have recently announced plans to pilot greater individual disclosure for parents who may have a concern about an adult who has access to their child. Through the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, we are introducing tougher court sentences and orders to impose new obligations on high-risk sex offenders as well as to restrict their movements.

Since coming to office, we have made it clear that when a high-risk sex offender goes missing all options must be considered, including publishing details in the news media and online, as has happened in several cases during the past year.

In addition to ensuring the rigorous monitoring of known sex offenders, what measures will the First Minister consider, given that seven out of the eight offenders who were convicted as a result of operation algebra were not registered sex offenders? How can we do all that we can to ensure that all aspects of society do what is possible to protect children from offenders who are not known to authorities, but who are too often known and trusted by children and their families?

As Angela Constance knows, the investigation—operation algebra—was triggered when an information technology worker found a suspicious file on a computer. That indicates the role that we all have, if we have suspicions, to contact the authorities.

It should be said, however, that once the investigation got under way and the prosecution took place, major breakthroughs were made in terms of the rigour and the science and technology that was used in the prosecution, which—along with the conspiracy charge that was brought against the accused—sends out a distinct and clear message that people who engage in that vile activity will be tracked down, dealt with, taken before justice and properly sentenced.

We should, while accepting the horror of the details of the case, be prepared and willing to congratulate our police and prosecution authorities on the fantastic job they are doing to keep the country safe.

The First Minister will be aware of the 33 recommendations of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee in the previous session in connection with managing registered sex offenders. How many of those 33 recommendations have been responded to by the Government? Will the First Minister commit the Government to providing the kind of resources that will be required to deal with some of the most dangerous offenders on the planet?

The precise answer is that 29 of the recommendations have been responded to by the Government. I set out in my first answer to Angela Constance some of the major initiatives that have been taken.

Paul Martin will particularly welcome our proposed information pilot in Scotland. We are confident that the pilot will indicate a satisfactory response and application, which will enable the same system of information to be spread throughout the country.

If anything positive can emerge from this appalling case, it is the performance of the police and the prosecution services. I wholly endorse the First Minister's comments in that regard.

Does the First Minister consider that there may be some merit in making it a condition of the licence of those who are released, having been convicted of sex offences, that they provide details of all the internet accounts they hold and all the sites they operate? It would seem that, in the case of at least one accused person, that might have been of benefit. Further, it might enable earlier action to be taken against those who pose a danger to society's most vulnerable—our children.

The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill will enable just such a proposal to be introduced, because it deals with additional conditions that will be put on people on the sex offenders register. If Bill Aitken makes proposals, they will certainly be well considered.

Given that I have on occasion had cause to suggest that Bill Aitken takes an overly negative view of certain developments in the justice system, I welcome his congratulations for the prosecution authorities and the police in this case. It is the nature of things that much of the coverage of our criminal justice activities tends to dwell on where mistakes are made or where shortcomings are found. Even in the most horrible, vile circumstances, when we see a profoundly efficient prosecution and police investigation come to fruition by bringing eight dreadful people to justice, we should unite as a Parliament to congratulate our judicial authorities.

---

Prisoners (Rehabilitation and Retraining)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to provide rehabilitation and retraining in prisons. (S3F-1705)

The Scottish Government is providing record investment to develop a 21st century prison estate. That will allow the Scottish Prison Service to deliver a range of activities that can assist prisoners to reintegrate with society.

Following the Scottish Prisons Commission's report, a multi-agency project is working to improve offender management. The role of offender retraining and rehabilitation will be included in that. Education and training is available in every Scottish prison. The Scottish Government is undertaking a national review of offender learning and employability services, which is due to report this summer.

The Scottish Prison Service also delivers a range of offending behaviour programmes that are designed to address the needs of prisoners who present the highest risk to the public.

Does the First Minister agree with his justice secretary that the prison regime for which his Government is responsible is "a skoosh"? The justice secretary wants to take thousands of offenders out of jail and refuses to invest in proposals for community courts—despite the clear will of the Parliament. Does that not leave the Government's policies on sentencing lacking any credibility?

The justice secretary was saying that short sentences are a skoosh in comparison with strong community sentences and orders.

Like some other members of the Parliament, Richard Baker wants to position himself on certain issues. In the previous session of Parliament, we heard from Cathy Jamieson some very intelligent assessment of why short sentences do not work in any of the requirements of society, so I wonder why Labour's new justice spokesman should take the line that he has. I also wonder whether everybody on the Labour benches is content with the somersaults of their party over the past two years. I was interested to read in the Evening News of 18 December a comment on a similar Richard Baker attack. It said:

"one Labour MSP admits to finding the approach ‘depressing' and adds: ‘Anyone who knows anything about it feels uncomfortable with what we're saying.'"

I do not know which Labour MSPs feel uncomfortable with Richard Baker, but I cannot help agreeing with the one—or more than one—who does.

---

Looked-after and Accommodated Children

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to improve life chances for looked-after and accommodated children. (S3F-1699)

Improving the life chances of all looked-after children in Scotland is a key commitment of the Government. Good corporate parenting is at the heart of successful childhoods for those who are in care. That is why the Government has already worked directly with 22 councils to strengthen their corporate parenting function and will work with the remaining councils and other agencies over the coming year.

In the past year we have published guidance for community planning partnerships on corporate parenting and improved educational outcomes for those in care; we have provided award-winning new training materials for those who work with looked-after children; we have trained 140 local trainers across Scotland; and we have launched a website that already averages more than 2,000 hits a month. In addition, we have commissioned the Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care to lead a partnership initiative to look into how we can further improve residential child care. The report is expected later this year.

I welcome what the First Minister has said. I am sure that he agrees that it is vital for the Scottish Government to consider the implications of the recent report on the Kerelaw unit. Will he agree to look also at the recent report entitled "Sweet 16? One year on—is life any sweeter?" by the former Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland? In her report, she expresses concern that financial difficulties and cuts are impacting negatively on the implementation of her recommendations on supporting young people leaving care—60 per cent of whom will have no qualifications and one in six of whom will become homeless within the first year.

As Margaret Smith knows, under this Government the funding available to local government in Scotland has been increasing year on year as a percentage of total public funding.

I have read the report into Kerelaw and read about the serious issues that it raises. As Margaret Smith will know, many of the recommendations fall on the local authority. However, from its response, I am certain that Glasgow City Council is taking the recommendations seriously. It acknowledges the shortcomings over a decade and more and is putting into place plans to deal with the serious shortcomings that have been identified.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—