Plenary, 18 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, November 18, 1999

Official Report 948KB pdf

---

Open Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meeting)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S1O612) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): I met the Secretary of State yesterday. We discussed a number of very serious issues, in particular whether Neil McCann should play from the start. [Laughter.] On that weighty issue, as on so many others, we were at one. Last night's match was very exciting and satisfying. It was the last international match that will ever be played under the twin towers of Wembley, and we won.

I am delighted to share with the First Minister both the pride in last night's victory and the disappointment that we will not go further in the European championships. I am also delighted to note that the First Minister and the secretary of state do not have turf wars at Wembley.

Now that Michael Russell's motion on the Act of Settlement has been signed by 68 members of this Parliament, will the First Minister undertake to communicate to the Prime Minister and urge on him the view that institutionalised discrimination is not acceptable in a modern constitution of a modern country?

The Prime Minister will be aware of the issue. It has been discussed extensively not only in and around this chamber, but in other parts of our constitutional structures. Alex Salmond will recognise that it is not an area for which we have responsibility or a remit. Many of us accept that it is a legacy of the past, and should be seen as such. It is also widely recognised that the Government has many pressing legislative priorities. Indeed—I do not want to quote him selectively—Cardinal Winning made that point very fairly in the press the other day. It is something that, no doubt, will be kept under review.

The cardinal has also noted—this chamber will surely agree—that this is an offensive act, and that discrimination against Catholics or anyone else has no place in a modern constitution. When the Scotland Act 1998 provided for us to discuss any matter, was it not so that this Parliament, on a cross-party basis, could take a lead in securing change and reform on an issue such as this, which has remained unreformed for far too long?

I think that everybody in this chamber is united against any form of prejudice. Certainly the most vicious form is active and current prejudice. This is something that we have inherited from the past. Alex Salmond will accept that it is a complex matter.

It has been said on a number of occasions that the legislative consequences, in terms of the tour around the Commonwealth, would be extensive, and there are links into other matters in our constitutional settlement that would require careful negotiation and discussion.

Of course, the Scottish Parliament has the power to talk about issues outwith its remit, although there is a general agreement that we would do so only in exceptional circumstances.

Will the First Minister ensure that his staff improve the quality of the presentation of the information on the Executive website? I am told by those who understand such matters that, after a good start early in the summer, the timing and the accuracy of the material on the website—

I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr Gorrie, but your comments are not related to the first question. I will have to call Margo MacDonald instead. The questions must relate to discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Although my question may appear to be tangential, Presiding Officer—[Laughter.]

If it is too tangential, I shall rule it out of order. Let us hear it.

It concerns an area of discrimination. Will the First Minister tell us whether he has made representations to Her Majesty's Government—and in particular, to the Secretary of State for Scotland—on the reasons for the proposed changes to legislation covering the prevention of terrorism, including nationalists in Scotland?

Ah. That is in order.

Can I express the hope that it is not too much in order?

I read in one newspaper that fear of violence in Scotland was one of the reasons for the reform of the legislation on the prevention of terrorism. I am glad to say that, on the basis of the record, it is not a matter that is uppermost in my mind. The reason for the reform of the legislation is that the framework is outdated. We need a comprehensive law within which the security services can operate with due and proper regard to both civil liberties and the needs of the state. That is what the Westminster Government intends to put on the statute book.

---

Prime Minister (Meeting)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the First Minister last met the Prime Minister and what subjects they discussed. (S1O-657) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): That is not quite so recent in my memory. I last met the Prime Minister on 14 October and I am afraid that we discussed matters of mutual concern.

I wonder whether those matters of mutual concern embraced the rising tide of crime across the United Kingdom and the pathetic response to it. Is the First Minister aware that we have nearly 500 fewer police officers on the beat in Scotland than we should have? Is he further aware that prison officers are being laid off and prisons are being closed? Is that what he considers to be joined-up thinking? When will his Executive, which likes to pull out millions for announcements in the chamber to be spent on this, that and the next pet project, ensure that our criminal justice system is properly funded?

Mr McLetchie might find it rather embarrassing if he were asked to specify what this, that and the next thing constituted. Almost all the expenditure that has been announced by our Government is in response to pressing need and special difficulties and has been greatly appreciated by those who will be affected by it.

Mr McLetchie will know that grant-aided expenditure for the police in this year's local government settlement was £714.7 million. That is an additional 3.4 per cent—£23 million—which is well above the rate of inflation. Next year, it will rise to £741 million. There have been extras, such as an additional £4.7 million to fund the inevitable expenses of policing the millennium celebrations.

The figures for police numbers have been fairly steady. Taking 30 June 1997 in comparison with 30 June 1999, we see that the figures have remained steady, with a decline of 88 police officers. That must be seen against an increase of

8.4 per cent in support staff—almost 400 people have been brought in to do jobs that no longer need to be done by police officers. That allows police officers to be out and about on the streets. As far as prisons are concerned, that is a rationalisation of money that had not been used in the current year—end-year flexibility. The baseline continues to go up. That money was not spent on this, that and the next thing; it remained in the justice department and has been used to fund the drugs enforcement agency. I would have thought that even David McLetchie would see that as a reasonable priority.

It is not a reasonable priority if it is at the expense of officers on the beat and safety in our communities. The First Minister should recognise that the first duty of any Government is to ensure public order and the safety of its citizens. If we do not have that foundation in society, we have nothing.

Two days ago, outside this Parliament, we saw prison officers demonstrating. Yesterday, the crisis in our court system resulted in cases being deferred and postponed to clear the logjam that resulted from the decision that was taken on temporary sheriffs.

Please ask your question, Mr McLetchie.

That was a decision for which the Executive had failed to plan properly, although it had long been expected, and was a direct result of its policy.

We must have a question.

I am coming to the question. Coming on top of the muddle over Ruddle, does the First Minister accept that his Jim cannot fix it? Can we please have a justice minister in Scotland who is up to the job?

McGonagall comes to Holyrood. [Laughter.]

Mr McLetchie is worried about the number of policemen, and I accept that his concern is legitimate. I can tell him that the drugs enforcement agency, when operating, will produce another 200 policemen. I admit that that is a specialist area, but the front-line fight to combat the drug menace is not exactly some curious byway of law and order, but is absolutely central, as anyone who has any knowledge of our prison population at the moment will know.

I understand the anxiety of the prison officers. We are aiming to avoid redundancies. We now have estimates, based on experience, of the likely prison population, estimates that lead us to believe that we can make those reductions. Penninghame and Dungavel are both old-fashioned and unsuitable forms of accommodation for prisoners. The recycling of that money into the drugs enforcement agency is very sensible.

I would be more impressed by Mr McLetchie's claim that what happened in the temporary sheriff affair could have been easily foreseen, if he had foreseen it. However, the law has not changed. The forum in which redress of law can be taken has changed to the Scottish courts, but the law has not changed since 1971. The point could have been taken up at any time since 1971. As soon as the action was raised and it became clear that there was a reasonable chance that the decision that was finally to be reached would be reached, we took precautionary measures. That is why advertisements for more full-time sheriffs have been in the papers, the time for applications has closed, and the matter is now in hand. There is not a crisis; there is a situation that has to be managed. Proper steps have to be taken. It does not help the administration of justice if people who apparently have authoritative knowledge go round talking about a crisis.

Supplementary questions are supposed to be about the discussion between the First Minister and the Prime Minister.

In the course of the First Minister's meeting with the Prime Minister, did the Prime Minister indicate his intention to introduce American-style workfare in Scotland? If he did, did the First Minister indicate his support for that?

I know of no such plans.

---

Anti-social Neighbour Orders

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to monitor the effectiveness and operation of anti-social neighbour orders. (S1O-618) The Deputy Minister for Communities (Jackie Baillie): We have commissioned the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland to monitor the use of anti-social behaviour orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as well as the extended powers of eviction for anti-social behaviour in the act. The outcome of the survey should be available in March next year.

Is the minister aware that many councils have yet to use the powers that have been provided to them by the legislation, which came into force in April this year? Is she further aware of the misery that the anti-social behaviour of a few residents causes their many law-abiding neighbours?

I have had constituents in tears on the phone and at my surgeries because of the stress caused by nuisance neighbours. There is an allegation that one of my constituents might have committed suicide because of the stress caused by the problem. What will the Executive do to persuade local authorities to use the powers that they have been given?

The Executive is very aware of and deeply concerned about the misery that anti-social behaviour causes to individuals, to families and to wider communities—which is precisely why we introduced anti-social behaviour orders in the first place. As I said, the Chartered Institute of Housing is monitoring usage for us. It is monitoring

the anti-social behaviour orders applied for, those granted, and those that have subsequently been breached.

We have heard informally of several successful applications by local authorities, with the first in Dundee and several recently in Edinburgh. We encourage local authorities with such problems in their area to make use of the orders.

The First Minister talked about "active and current prejudice". Does the minister agree that racial harassment is one of the worst forms of anti-social behaviour? Within her remit, does she plan to extend the monitoring of the operation of anti-social behaviour orders to such harassment?

Naturally, I share Fiona's concern about racial harassment. I hope that members support the fact that such harassment is not welcome in the Scotland of tomorrow.

We must examine the implementation of the current anti-social behaviour orders. We will then be able to review the matter and come back to Parliament.

Will the minister investigate anti-social behaviour orders in relation to private sector housing? In the Stirling Council area, there is little or no financial provision for that work.

From 1 December 1998, section 23 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 dealt with anti-social behaviour orders in relation to owner- occupiers. People can lose their homes if they suffer a custodial sentence and do not have the means to repay their mortgage, if drugs are involved or because of confiscation. Such provision already exists.

That concludes question time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. As the Lord Advocate explained that the Deputy First Minister could not attend today's question time, we do not dispute why he is not here. However, is it appropriate for the Lord Advocate to deal with questions on policy matters in front of Parliament and in particular on matters of policing? Some of his responsibilities might be compromised by the answers that he is giving to such questions.

I notice that the Deputy Minister for Justice did not attend question time either, which is probably why the Lord Advocate had to answer certain questions. Does any other member of the Executive wish to comment?

The Deputy Minister for Justice is in Ireland today with a crowded and long-arranged agenda, trying to learn some lessons about drug enforcement that may or may not be applicable in Scotland. I thought that it would be wrong to pull him out of that engagement. I am not aware that any of the Lord Advocate's answers would prejudice any of his responsibilities.

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. We dispute neither the legitimate reasons for the Deputy Minister for Justice being in Ireland nor the personal reasons for the Deputy First Minister not being in the chamber. However, if there is a point of principle at stake, it should be dealt with. If ministers are absent for good reason, perhaps the First Minister should answer certain questions instead of the Lord Advocate moving into policy matters.

Although that is a tempting invitation for me to be on my feet all the time, I am not sure that the suggestion would find universal popularity or acceptance in the Parliament.

I will examine the Official Report closely, but I did not detect any comments that were out of order. Let us move on to the debate.