Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 18, 2000

Official Report 637KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the acting First Minister what issues were discussed at the most recent meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S1F-322)

The Cabinet discussed several matters of significance to the Executive and to the people of Scotland.

Does the acting First Minister share the anger of women's groups, across party in the Parliament and throughout the country, at the Home Secretary's decision to allow Mike Tyson into this country to pursue his fight in Glasgow? [Members: "Shame."] Is not it the case that the norm would be that a convicted rapist would be refused entry? Why, then, are the rules being bent in Mike Tyson's case? Does the acting First Minister share my horror that among the exceptional reasons cited by the Home Secretary is the economic interest of the UK and this area in allowing the fight to go ahead? Does he agree that the people of Scotland and of Glasgow would rather have our national reputation intact than be bought and sold for Tyson's gold?

The views of the Parliament, of women's groups and of many people throughout Scotland have been well and clearly expressed and none of those groups will be giving any welcome to Mike Tyson if he should come to Scotland. We have always acknowledged that it is a matter to be decided by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; it is a decision that he has had to take in accordance with law. It was right that the Home Secretary was aware of the strong tide of opinion in Scotland. I believe that it was right for me to inform his department of that, and he has acknowledged it in his statement. However, as I have indicated, the decision is his and it is one that he must take in accordance with the law.

It is a pity, then, that the Home Secretary decided to ignore the advice of the acting First Minister and of Scotland. How does the acting First Minister think the Asian community in Glasgow will feel about the decision, given that applications for entry clearance visas from reasonable people who want to attend weddings, funerals and other family events are rejected every day? How do those people feel when they see a convicted rapist ushered in in this manner? As Scotland's Minister for Justice, will he inform the Home Secretary of the damage to community relations that may be done by his decision?

As Mr Salmond well knows, immigration visas are also a matter for the Home Office. Matters that are the responsibility of this Executive include tackling violence and having zero tolerance with regard to domestic abuse. That is something to which the Executive is committed. The mood that has been expressed in Scotland is one of abhorrence of crimes of violence, particularly violence directed against women.

I take this opportunity to affirm the Executive's belief, backed up again today by more money for the police to ensure that they can tackle violence effectively, that violence is deplorable. That includes domestic violence, violence committed against women by celebrities such as Mike Tyson or violence committed by people who are anonymous but inflict violence day in, day out on members of their family or on other women. We will not tolerate such behaviour and where the Executive has powers to act, we will certainly use them.

Is the acting First Minister saying that the Executive and the Parliament are totally powerless in this matter? As the guardian of the public interest in Scotland—[Interruption.]

Order.

Will the acting First Minister undertake that the Executive, as the guardian of the Scottish public interest, will seek a judicial review in the Scottish courts against the Home Secretary's decision, or is the only solution for Scotland for this Parliament to have the power to decide who shall and who shall not enter our country?

I am disappointed—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the answer.

When we discuss issues as serious as violence—and violence against women in particular—I am disappointed that Mr Salmond should seek again to be opportunist. [Interruption.]

Order. We must listen to the answers, even if we disagree with them. [Interruption.] Order.

The devolution settlement clearly set out that matters of immigration were matters for the Home Secretary and the Westminster Parliament. We should think for a moment about the implications of Mr Salmond's comments. If Scotland were to have the power to grant visas—or not to grant them—and if Mike Tyson were to come to England, how in the world would the SNP stop him crossing the border into Scotland? Is Alex Salmond genuinely suggesting that we have border guards at Berwick or checkpoint Alex at Gretna? He should not try to trivialise important matters of domestic violence by making an opportunistic point about his policies of independence.

Domestic violence and violence against women are important matters. I have indicated that in dealing with them the Executive will use the powers that it has to show zero tolerance of violence in our community.

Members must not shout as answers are being given, even if they do not like those answers.

Does the Deputy First Minister accept that from now on any convicted criminal could be foisted upon Scotland by Jack Straw's one-man decision in London? Does he think that that is good enough for Scotland?

I simply repeat my comments of a moment ago. Immigration matters, such as the granting of visas, are reserved to Westminster. To follow the logic of Dorothy-Grace Elder's proposal, there would have to be the border controls that the SNP has always denied it would have. Otherwise, the SNP will have to answer to the people of Scotland how it would police what it postures in its proposals.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meeting)

To ask the acting First Minister when he next expects to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what they intend to discuss. (S1F-320)

I speak to the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly on the telephone. We have a meeting planned for next month. The matters we discuss are, of course, private.

I suggest to the acting First Minister that at his next meeting with the secretary of state they discuss the comments made by the incoming president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents when he spoke to the association's conference today in Peebles. He believes that the European convention on human rights is tantamount to a criminal's charter that is hampering and bedevilling investigations with unnecessary red tape.

Instead of stacking the odds against the police and the fight against crime, will the acting First Minister restore a sense of balance by putting more emphasis on other important human rights, such as the right to life, the right to live in a safe community and the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions?

On restoring a sense of balance, and as I hope my colleague Angus MacKay mentioned earlier, I was pleased to announce this morning a further £8.9 million for the police to help in the campaign against crime.

I have never shied away from accepting that the ECHR should be part of our domestic law. I campaigned for its incorporation for a long time. Anyone who reads the rights in the convention will see that they are basic, decent rights to which any civilised society should aspire. They have ensured for years that Governments have had to monitor the interception of communications properly. They have ensured, in the case of thalidomide, that newspapers were not strangled by Government secrecy. They have, at times, operated very much in the interests of the citizen.

The difference between Mr McLetchie's party and the Executive is that his party was always prepared to accept the ECHR—but only for people who had the money and the spare time to go to Strasbourg. We have brought human rights home to Scotland, but access to those rights will not depend on the size of someone's bank balance. People can vindicate those rights in their local courts—it need not be done in a neighbouring country.

I remind the minister of two statistics. First, it will cost £10 million to deal with criminal and civil issues arising from the ECHR in our courts this year. That is more than the extra money he has been crowing about today. Secondly, all his announcement of additional money has done is reduce the cut in his department's budget this year from £61 million to £52 million. We will still have 100 fewer police officers than we had three years ago. While we are on the subject of extra police officers, will the minister assure me that his extra police officers are not the same as his friend Jack Straw's fictitious extra officers? Those officers illustrate an example of the creative accounting and deceitful presentation that are hallmarks of the Labour Government and the Scottish Executive.

Mr McLetchie recycles old questions. On the justice budget, he is trying—with the figures that he gives—to compare apples and pears. He compares the baseline plus end-year flexibility—which, for last year, included funding for the Lockerbie trial and Kosovan refugees and asylum seekers—with the baseline for the current year. If he compared baseline with baseline, he will see an increase in the justice budget. This year, of course, the baseline will have added to it end-year flexibility payments in respect of the Lockerbie trial.

I assure Mr McLetchie that the money that is being spent is the consequential money that has come through from the budget. Subject to chief police officers deploying that money for recruitment—my conversations with chief police officers indicate that that is what they are keen to do—more than 300 new police officers will be recruited.

Mr McLetchie seems to have omitted to mention—or perhaps lost sight of—the additional 100 police officers who will be recruited as a result of the £10 million that will be invested this year and next in the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency. Together, the two figures ensure that there is provision in the budget to make police numbers higher than they were when the Conservatives left office in May 1997 and higher than they were when they last peaked in December 1997.

There will be new police officers. The chief police officer in Strathclyde was very welcoming about my announcement and indicated that he will be recruiting new officers as a result of the money.

We must welcome the investment in policing, but does the minister think that there is a need for a top-to-bottom review of policing in Scotland that considers poor police response times, the lack of community policing strategies and some of the other issues that members face in their constituencies?

I will meet chief police officers in Nairn later today, but I know from talking to them that they are always looking for ways in which policing can be improved. That is why the Executive has not only given them more money to recruit officers—for prevention and detection of crime—but last month gave them an extra £1.7 million to invest in DNA fingerprinting.

Criminals use very sophisticated techniques, so we must ensure that in all aspects of policing the police have the most up-to-date techniques to fight effectively the war against crime.

I think question 3 has already been answered, but we will take it all the same.

---

Police

To ask the First Minister what measures are being taken to support police forces throughout Scotland. (S1F-329)

I have announced today that the Scottish Executive is providing an additional £8.9 million to the police in Scotland, over and above the £10 million that is being invested in the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency and the £1.7 million that is being made available to forces to fund an expansion in DNA testing. On any reasonable examination, that is a substantial investment that will boost police numbers, tackle the scourge of drug misuse and improve detection through new technology.

I welcome the additional police officers who will be recruited because of the extra resources the Deputy First Minister has announced today. I am sure that the announcement will be welcomed by Lothian and Borders police, whose chief constable has called for an increase in police numbers. Will extra funding for the police also be channelled into additional administrative and civilian support, as well as information technology and other new technologies, to allow our hard-working police to do their job where they are most needed—on the beat, defending Scotland's communities?

I thank Mr Muldoon for his welcome for the announcement. As I have said, it will be for chief constables to decide how the resources are used, but it is clear that they will want to concentrate on recruitment. As Mr Muldoon says, there has been a significant increase in the number of civilian support staff. We are not talking simply about people answering the telephone or typing, as was suggested to me in a radio interview today, but about statisticians, communications staff, driving instructors and forensic laboratory services—a range of support staff. They ensure not only that police officers are freed up for front-line duties but that people of considerable professionalism and expertise are employed to fight the war against crime.

Can the Deputy First Minister say whether the resources will be sufficient to allow Lothian and Borders police to recruit the 25 extra police officers for whom it has consistently asked and who are sorely needed?

The allocation to Lothian and Borders police will be £1.442 million. That will mean that it can have not only the extra 25 officers it has requested, but another 33 on top of that.

The acting First Minister has already mentioned police support services. Given the information, which has come out this week, that the fingerprint support services in the Scottish Criminal Record Office are in a state of crisis, will the acting First Minister commit himself to carrying out a root-and-branch review of those services? There is worldwide concern about the case of Shirley McKie.

I am aware of Mike Russell's interest in this issue, not least the events arising out of the Shirley McKie case. As he knows, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary is currently investigating these matters. We are still awaiting the inspector's report, but I can assure Mr Russell that that report and the recommendations it makes will receive the serious attention from the Executive that they deserve.

---

Land Ownership

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's policy is in relation to private ownership of Scotland's mountains. (S1F-321)

In respect of all land, the important issue is not so much who owns it as whether ownership is exercised responsibly. Our code of good practice for rural land ownership, which is to be published later this year, will set those responsibilities out clearly.

As the acting First Minister is aware, the sale of Ben Nevis and the placing on the open market of the Cuillins have put land ownership back under the spotlight. Given that the people of Scotland deserve to know what type of Scotland the Scottish Executive wishes to create, will the acting First Minister inform the chamber this afternoon of his view—and the view of the Scottish Executive—on the ownership of Scotland's mountains? Does he believe that it is right or wrong that Scotland's mountains can be traded on the open market by private interests, be they private individuals or companies? Can he give us an unequivocal, clear-cut statement—yes or no?

Mr Lochhead asks a five-point question and asks me to answer yes or no. I repeat what I have said—it is the quality of ownership that matters. There are important issues here; I acknowledge that. It is important that the Black Cuillin, which is an important part of our natural heritage, should be properly protected. The Executive has powers—which it exercises—to ensure that. It is important that people have access to areas of outstanding beauty, such as the Black Cuillin, for recreation. Access exists, and the Executive is introducing legislation to buttress it in statute.

As my colleague Angus MacKay said in response to a debate initiated by John Farquhar Munro last week, the Scotland Office will take up with the Crown Estate the question of ownership of the Black Cuillin. Furthermore, we have said that we want to commission a research study into the possible need for improved information, which would enable us better to identify land ownership in Scotland.

I am reassured by the minister's statement and pleased to hear that the Crown Estate will investigate and clarify the position for us.

Leaving the mountains aside, may I make the minister aware of a little piece of Highland culture that is generally accepted in west Highland communities? In seven days, it is said, the Lord made heaven and earth and all it contains—except the western isles, which he left to Caledonian MacBrayne. I seek an assurance from the minister that he will liaise with the Executive to ensure that that legacy is continued.

As John Farquhar Munro knows, Sarah Boyack made an announcement recently on the European regulations that will impinge on the work that is done by CalMac.

As there has been some misleading information, I will take this opportunity to emphasise the fact that the Executive has no intention of privatising CalMac. As a member for an islands constituency, I recognise the vital role that ferry links play for our island communities and—

Order.

—it is our intention that those vital ferry links continue to be supported.

Order. The question is about mountains, not boats.

I am sure the Deputy First Minister will join me in welcoming the news that the Crown Estate is to investigate the ownership of the Cuillin. Will he also pay tribute to those who put on pressure for that decision—the Scotland Office, the Deputy Minister for the Highlands and Islands and Gaelic and members of the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament?

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that as the investigation continues, we must look at the new duties of environmental protection as well as the effective use of public money in the Executive's land reform legislation?

I pay tribute to the many people who have raised the issue and ensured that it has been debated properly on the Scottish agenda.

I said before that we will publish a code of good practice for rural land ownership. We will certainly study the scope for public assistance for supporting land use. That may well be conditional upon compliance with the code.