Plenary, 16 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, November 16, 2006

Official Report 878KB 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-2544)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

No doubt it will also reflect on the fact that this morning the Scottish National Party broke its promise to Scottish business and voted for third-party right of appeal.

Dear, oh dear. I draw to the First Minister's attention the annual review of the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, which was published this morning. It confirms that the First Minister has broken his pledge to cut the number of persistent young offenders. Can he explain why?

The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration has had an increase in resources to deal with the challenge that it faces. Throughout Scotland, police forces, local authorities that have been working with them and the SCRA are finding that the number of young people being identified as causing trouble in the community, requiring action because of their offence—rather than simply care to improve their circumstances—and being moved into the system to ensure that their behaviour is tackled, is increasing. That is because of the priority that we have given to no longer ignoring those young people, but ensuring that their behaviour is turned around and that communities throughout Scotland are better protected.

So, in the First Minister's language, a broken pledge actually means that the Executive is doing better. What a load of utter rubbish.

I remind the First Minister that in 2004 his Minister for Justice promised a 10 per cent reduction in the number of persistent young offenders by March this year. She said:

"We … have … more robust information … we … know who and where the young people are."—[Official Report, 4 November 2004; c 11589.]

She also said that the target was "achievable."

I point out to the First Minister that youth offending has not gone down by 10 per cent; according to this morning's report, it has gone up by 16 per cent. In East Ayrshire, the Minister for Justice's own area, it has gone up by a massive 85 per cent. Is not this much more than a missed pledge? This is a Government that is going in totally the wrong direction. Instead of coming up with daft excuses, will the First Minister simply tell us what has gone wrong with his policies?

We know that the SNP thought that it was daft to bring in antisocial behaviour laws and to ensure that we had both antisocial behaviour orders and dispersal orders to tackle the problems of youth offending and trouble in our communities. We know that the SNP would not have made those issues a priority for this Parliament in this session. We know that the SNP has mocked, and would not have prioritised, the plans to ensure that looked-after children get better educational opportunities and that some who are young offenders are not just better looked after but, at the end of the day, are directed into the proper opportunities of life.

We know that the SNP would not have tackled those issues, but it was important that this devolved Government did tackle them. Across Scotland, there were real issues about how primarily young people, but others too, were behaving in local communities. Laws were required, and a better system inside the children's hearing system was required. At the end of the day, we hope that those young people will become better adults as a result.

Is it not incumbent on the First Minister, during these sessions, to tell the truth? The SNP voted for the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, and if the First Minister checks the Official Report, he will perhaps change his answer in future.

Can we get back to the First Minister's record in office? The figures in this morning's report deal with the previous financial year, but I also draw the First Minister's attention to the figures for the first quarter of the new financial year. In the first quarter of last year, the number of persistent young offenders was 563; this year, it was 654—yet another dramatic rise and yet more proof that this Executive has still not got a grip.

I remind the First Minister that in 2004 the Minister for Justice told Parliament that she would

"ensure that progress is made."—[Official Report, 4 November 2004; c 11594.]

Progress has not been made. Things have got, and are still getting, worse.

Earlier this year, the Scottish Executive said that failing teachers would be assisted to find new careers. What happens to failing justice ministers?

At the risk of repetition, I will make some points again. The way to deal with persistent young offenders is first to identify them more accurately and effectively; secondly, to ensure that police and local authorities have the powers to tackle the issues raised by persistent young offenders; thirdly, to have more secure accommodation for persistent young offenders—we have invested in that and it is now in place—and fourthly, to ensure not only that measures are taken to deal with the offending but that, at the end of the period when action has been taken against their offending behaviour, those youngsters are pushed into opportunities in education, employment and training so that they become better adults and do not spend their lives as career criminals. That is the action that this devolved Government is taking: identifying young offenders; ensuring that the system has the powers to deal with them; ensuring that the system, when it has those powers, can tackle their offending behaviour, if necessary by locking them away; and ensuring that opportunities are available to them so that they do not become career criminals as adults.

The First Minister is certainly not one to let the facts get in the way of a good waffle. The truth is that the number of persistent young offenders is going up year on year and this Executive has broken its pledge to cut that number by 10 per cent.

With a record like Cathy Jamieson's, it is perhaps no wonder that Gordon Brown does not want her to run Labour's election campaign. But when it comes to that job, believe me, I think that the First Minister should stand his ground and keep Cathy Jamieson in charge.

Is it not the case that, over the past three weeks, this Government has been exposed as failing to deliver on nursery education, on council tax and now on youth crime? The First Minister himself is a persistent offender: he persistently fails to keep his promises. Is that not why more and more people think that it is time now for an SNP Government in Scotland—a Government that will keep its promises, and a Government that will deliver?

I have answered the point about persistent young offenders. Any justice minister with a record like Cathy Jamieson's—of the level of crime being down, the clean-up rates on crime being higher than ever before, record police numbers, and all the other improvements in our legal system, including the reforms in our courts—should be proud of that record.

If we are talking about broken promises, the SNP still has a question to answer about the £1 billion hole in its plans for local government finance, about which we heard last Thursday. That question still has not been answered. That is a promise that the SNP cannot keep and a gap that it would have to fill.

It ill becomes the SNP—today of all days—to talk about broken promises. Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney, Jim Mather, Alex Salmond and all the others have gone round businesses in Scotland assuring them again and again that they would not vote for a third-party right of appeal in the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. Yet, today, although Nicola Sturgeon did not have the guts to come into the chamber and vote herself, all the other SNP members were in here voting for it. That proves that the SNP cannot be trusted by Scottish business. The true face of the SNP is now exposed to Scotland.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2545)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister in Oban next weekend, and I am looking forward to it.

Yesterday, Craig Nimmo was convicted of the culpable homicide of Bryan Drummond, an innocent man who, like so many others, was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nimmo was originally charged with murder but pled guilty on a reduced plea and was sentenced to nine years. Can the First Minister tell me when he expects Mr Nimmo to be walking our streets again?

That will be a matter for the Scottish Prison Service.

It will be a matter for the Prison Service working under the law that the First Minister and his Executive have persisted in maintaining. The First Minister may pretend that he is abolishing early release, but he is merely replacing the existing system of early release with a new system of early release. Nobody is fooled.

Since the First Minister has neglected to answer the question, I will. Under the current early release system, Nimmo will be released after only six years. Under the First Minister's new early release system, he could be released 18 months earlier, after serving only four and a half years, unless the judge deemed the circumstances exceptional. At 20 years old, he will be free once again.

It is common knowledge that the Conservative party has tried to end the current discredited sentencing practice, which is opposed by every other party in the Parliament. Does the First Minister accept that, if our changes had been enacted, Nimmo would not be entitled to automatic early release on his full nine-year sentence?

I say again this week that what Annabel Goldie claims is simply not true. The reports at the weekend of what she claims to be the case are simply not true either. The reality is that, if a judge sentenced any individual in any case—it would be wrong of me to comment on an actual case, so I will choose the hypothetical case of Mr Smith—to six, seven or eight years in prison, that individual would serve six, seven or eight years in prison. In fact, under the proposals that will come before the Parliament, they could serve more than that. If the Parole Board decided that the individual was still a risk to society, they could serve even more than the prison sentence that was deemed appropriate by the judge.

That is entirely different from the system that was established under the Conservative Government in the 1990s, which is still in place but will be replaced by the Executive. That system would allow such an individual, under certain circumstances, to be out after half their sentence and, under other circumstances, to be out after two thirds of their sentence. That is a Tory law that will be abolished by the Parliament and replaced by a law under which the prison sentence is enforced and means exactly what it says. In addition, individuals can expect to be supervised in the community, following their prison sentence, so that they are less likely to reoffend. That is the right system for Scotland. It is an honest and true sentencing system for Scotland, and if the Tories had any backbone they would support it.

I would have thought that the First Minister would be conversant with his Executive's bill, which redefines "sentence". Under the bill, with the exception of life sentences, a "sentence" will become a mixture—a mongrel—that is partly served in jail and partly served in the community. The difficulty for the First Minister is that he has to accept that that is a radical departure from traditional custodial sentencing in Scotland. I suspect that other victims' families would not be impressed by his answer. Let us consider Frances Getgood, who was stabbed by her husband 10 times while he was out on early release from a sentence for a previous attack on her. Last week, he was sentenced to five years and four months.

The First Minister can argue until the cows come home, but under the current automatic early release system, that offender will be coming out of prison after three years and six months. Under the proposals in the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, he is likely to face a reduced period of detention of just over two years and eight months. Less time in prison is not a sentencing improvement. Will the First Minister therefore support Conservative amendments to restore honesty to custodial sentencing?

Unlike Annabel Goldie, I do not have the luxury of commenting on individual cases and sentences, and I am not going to do that. However, yet again, what she says is not true. If the judge in that or any other case deems a particular number of years and months to be the prison sentence that should be handed down to an individual, that individual will not only complete that sentence in custody, but will face the possibility that if they do not behave properly, they could spend extra time in prison. In addition, when those individuals leave prison, they will have to be supervised in the community for a time period laid down by the judge. That is exactly the right thing.

This is not just a modern sentencing system for Scotland, it is the right sentencing system for Scotland. It abolishes the Tory laws that Annabel Goldie has rightly criticised today—although she did not do so in the 1990s—and replaces them with the right law. Sentences will mean what they say. Prison sentences will be fully carried out and those who serve part of their sentences in the community will be monitored so that they do not reoffend.

We are not talking about just prison plus restrictions or prison plus the opportunity of supervision, we are talking about prison plus the prospect of more prison if an offender misbehaves in prison in the first place. The Tories should be supporting the proposals instead of misrepresenting them and saying things here and elsewhere that are simply not true.

I will take two back-bench supplementary questions at this point.

The First Minister will be aware of the announcement by Youngs Bluecrest Ltd that it is to cease the machine peeling of scampi at its factory in Annan in my constituency, which will mean the loss of 120 jobs. Does the First Minister appreciate the impact that that will have on the local economy in Annandale? Will he commit the Scottish Executive and Scottish Enterprise to offering whatever support they can make available to the workers who will be affected? Does he share my concern that companies such as Youngs Bluecrest are deciding to ship Scottish caught langoustines 12,000 miles—six weeks there and back—to take advantage of low wages in the far east? How can the Government encourage companies to take social and environmental factors into account, as well as commercial pressures, when considering such decisions?

Of course companies should take social and environmental factors into account: they have a responsibility to the community. They also have to recognise that Scotland not only has natural resources, including shellfish, but also fantastic skills and abilities at all levels of the industry, and the capacity to improve those skills and abilities. The flexibility of the Scottish workforce was shown yet again this week in the highest ever Scottish employment levels—higher than those in the rest of the United Kingdom—in lower unemployment levels than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and in a stronger Scottish economy than we have had since devolution and the many years before during which the Tories caused us so many problems. It is vital that companies recognise that Scotland is a good place to locate jobs, to invest, for people to work and to grow and develop their business.

I know that the First Minister, like everyone else in the chamber, will wish those who are involved in the talks on the future of Northern Ireland well in their endeavours. However, it is clear that one of the major issues emerging in those talks is the proposal, which has all-party agreement, to reduce the level of corporation tax in Northern Ireland, from the United Kingdom level of 30 per cent to nearer the southern Irish level of 12.5 per cent. Will the First Minister seriously examine the implications for the Scottish economy if that proposal goes ahead and will he press for a similar power to be devolved to this Parliament, so that we can continue to attract inward investment and to keep the investment that is here in Scotland?

Apart from pointing out, Presiding Officer, that Northern Ireland is not Mr Neil's constituency, I will make a number of specific points. First, if Mr Neil believes that we should have a 12.5 per cent rate of corporation tax in Scotland, I hope that he will spell out where the £1.4 billion that that would cost would come from in our £30 billion budget. Secondly, it is I who believe in consistency in tax policy across the United Kingdom, not Mr Neil, and although the measures proposed for Northern Ireland would, of course, be welcome here in Scotland, we want the same incentives as exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Thirdly, for Mr Neil to portray himself as in some way pro-growth and pro-business, as he has done today, requires a little bit of a stretch of the imagination. We know that the SNP is against private profit and the involvement of any private companies in the building of schools and hospitals, and Mr Salmond has made it clear that he will abolish the hospital and school-building programme simply because of his aversion to private profit. We also know that SNP members, including Mr Neil, having promised every business in Scotland that they would oppose a third-party right of appeal in our planning system, sat in the chamber this morning and voted for it. We cannot trust the SNP on business, just as we cannot trust it on anything else.

---

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 intends to discuss. (S2F-2546)

I expect to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland next week in Oban, although I regret that he will not be joining me to turn on the Christmas lights.

Ross Finnie has been boasting recently about Scotland's record on carbon dioxide emissions. The First Minister knows that that success is largely due to the closure of Ravenscraig and other heavy industries, and he knows that the Executive's own figures, published this week, show that emissions in transport, power generation and housing are up. Can he explain how the Executive can set a CO2 emissions target that can be met even if total CO2 emissions from Scotland go up?

We have made our position on carbon emissions clear. The commitment that we give is not just to meet our share of the United Kingdom's carbon emissions targets but to go further. We have the right policies in place to achieve that. Our commitment to increased investment in public transport ensures that it is not only more available but more attractive. Changes in the regulations for housing and for buildings will ensure that buildings are better insulated and therefore use less energy. A whole range of other measures are designed to achieve not only the carbon emissions target, but a far better society in Scotland.

It is all very well to talk about Scotland's share, but the current target is one that can be met even when emissions from Scotland go up. That target looks only at CO2 reductions from selected areas, and it completely ignores the increase in emissions from such things as new motorway construction. When will the First Minister commit Scotland to a target on emissions from all sources of CO2, not just those that he cherry picks?

I have already said that we have an emissions target that is up there with the target set by the UK, which is generally reckoned to be one of the leading nations in the world in having targets for itself and in pressing for targets to be implemented elsewhere, but we will go further than that target in our actions here in Scotland. We will do that not on our own, but by working with the various sectors in Scottish society that have a contribution to make, including businesses, householders and local authorities. We will also do it through our actions on energy. I am delighted to be able confirm today that Balcas, a pioneering firm in the biomass industry, will locate in the Highlands of Scotland. The firm has been given Government funding in order to secure that location. Such a decision not only locates jobs in the right places and supports individual companies in the industry, but makes Scotland one of the places where renewable energy is to the fore.

Actions such as proper investment, the right decisions about locations, and the prioritisation of energy, transport, waste and the other matters that we have prioritised will make a difference and help us to meet the target.

---

Knife Crime

To ask the First Minister what further steps the Scottish Executive is taking to reduce knife crime. (S2F-2548)

To reduce knife crime in Scotland, we have delivered new legislation to double the maximum sentences for anyone caught carrying a knife; revised prosecution guidelines to ensure that more trials are brought before a sheriff and jury; and introduced tougher police enforcement, led by a new national violence reduction unit. In addition, provisions on licensing the sale of non-domestic knives in the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, which we hope will be passed by this Parliament, and a hard-hitting new media campaign that was launched this week by the Minister for Justice will help make further progress. All that is in the context of there being 1,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime last year in Scotland and of the level of serious violent crime now being at its lowest since devolution in 1999.

Is the First Minister aware that this month marks the sixth anniversary of the death of 10-year-old Damilola Taylor and that the Damilola Taylor Trust is launching a campaign, with Home Office sponsorship, to encourage young people to respect life and reject knives?

The Angus community alcohol-free environment—CAFÉ—project is working to bring the initiative to Scotland to allow our young people the opportunity to say no to Scotland's knife culture. Given that the initiative in England and Wales dovetails perfectly with the Scottish Government's own campaign designed to challenge knife culture, what will the First Minister do to assist the CAFÉ project and the Damilola Taylor Trust to engage with Scotland's schools and youth organisations to allow our young people to make a similar positive and public statement against knife violence?

I thank Andrew Welsh for his question and for the points that he makes about both the Damilola Taylor Trust and the CAFÉ project, which is doing a terrific job locally in highlighting the issue and influencing the behaviour of young people. I would certainly want to investigate the possibility of further developing their work and encouraging them to set an example elsewhere. I am sure that it might even be possible, if Andrew Welsh is happy to secure an invitation, for either the Minister for Justice or the Deputy Minister for Justice to visit the project to see it at first hand.

---

Farepak

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to help resolve the situation faced by customers of Farepak. (S2F-2551)

We are in close contact with the United Kingdom authorities as they lead on efforts to help the people most affected by the collapse of Farepak. Ian McCartney, Minister of State for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs at the Department of Trade and Industry, has written to the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to update him on the impact of the situation on Scotland, and the deputy minister will report on that to Parliament in due course.

As members will know, the Farepak Response Fund has now been set up. It will operate on a temporary basis and distribute goodwill payments, in the form of vouchers, directly to the former Farepak agents. I urge all members to make a donation to the fund.

I thank the First Minister for his answer and welcome the fact that the Parliament has agreed to debate next week the motion on the issue that Elaine Murray lodged.

I ask the First Minister whether he recognises the strong campaigning that has been done by many of the individuals whose Christmas has been threatened by the collapse of the company. The campaign has been led in Scotland by Susie Hall and has been supported by many MPs and MSPs of all parties. Does the First Minister agree that it is important that companies as well as individuals make substantial donations to the Farepak Response Fund, to which he referred, in order that people's Christmas can be saved? Does he also agree that, in the longer term, we should promote and support the credit union movement as a safe and well regulated means by which people can save for future Christmases?

This is becoming a pleasant habit. I thank Bristow Muldoon, too, for his constructive question and the way in which he made those suggestions.

I agree that we should encourage further development of the credit union movement as well as greater local use of credit unions as a far more secure option for people who wish to save for Christmas or any other special occasion.

I hope that we can provide practical support to those who are trying to help in this situation and that businesses and others who can afford to contribute to the fund will do so. I also genuinely hope that the many thousands of people in Scotland who have been affected by this—I believe that, of those affected, a higher proportion come from Scotland than from other parts of the country—have at least some hope of a decent Christmas.

As we started late, I use my discretion to take question 6 from Euan Robson.

---

Scotland Office

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive envisages a continuing relationship with the Scotland Office in light of the on-going development of devolution. (S2F-2556)

The Scottish Executive's strong and valuable relationship with the Scotland Office has played a key role in ensuring the continuing success of the devolution settlement.

Does the First Minister not agree that the Scotland Office is now a relic of its former self and should be abolished? Moreover, will he consider the case for introducing a new joint committee of the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments?

Although, in the early days of devolution, such joint committees operated with some success in a number of policy areas, they were felt to be inappropriate for the Parliament's second term. However, given the commitment of the Parliament and this devolved Government to reduce poverty in Scotland, to further economic development and to address some major environmental challenges, which affect the responsibilities of the Governments at Westminster and in Scotland, it might be worth looking at resurrecting some of those joint committees or, indeed, other kinds of committee that are more appropriate for today. I am certainly happy to do so. The question whether a formal joint committee is required is another matter.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—