Plenary, 22 Jan 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, January 22, 2009

Official Report 711KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Engagements

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1375)

I have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

I join the Presiding Officer in welcoming our distinguished guests. I am also delighted to announce to members that today we are consenting to Npower Renewables' Siadar wave array project—one of the largest wave installations in the world—in the Western Isles. That is a sign that, even in these tough economic times, there is strength and resilience in the economy, of which renewable energy is certainly an example. All of us in the chamber should welcome such announcements.

Tomorrow, the Parliament will host the knife crime summit that our Public Petitions Committee has organised. The summit is a response to the 15,000 people who signed the petition organised by John Muir, who lost his son, Damian, in a senseless knife attack. The petition called for mandatory jail sentences for knife crime. Last June, the First Minister said that he was considering that measure and others, and that a criminal justice bill would be forthcoming. The document "Revitalising Justice: Proposals to Modernise and Improve the Criminal Justice System" lists what the proposed bill will contain. It does not mention knife crime once. Why not?

Because the matter is still under consideration by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Obviously, the proposed criminal justice bill will give not just the Government but every member a chance to bring forward amendments to address a range of issues in the justice system.

I accept the seriousness of the issue and the tragedy of individual cases. Knife crime is a serious problem in Scotland, as is the spread of guns and other weapons. I know that everybody in the chamber will want to address those matters.

However, we should put one thing in context, which is that we have in Scotland just now not only the highest number of police officers in our history but the lowest levels of recorded crime for 25 years.

Those statistics are true and welcome, but we should not close our eyes to the fact that Scotland's murder rate remains one of the highest in Europe—it is significantly higher than that of, for example, England and Wales—and that half those murders are knife related. A response to that should be up-front and centre, and rapid. The problem is that waiting will sound too much like an excuse to the knife crime summit tomorrow.

The First Minister does not have to wait for further legislation. In April 2007, the Parliament legislated to control by licence the sale of non-domestic knives. The First Minister's Government has never implemented that measure. It says that it might do so in September, by which time it will have waited for two and a half years. Why does the First Minister not simply order his Cabinet Secretary for Justice to go to the knife crime summit tomorrow and say that he will stop dithering and start controlling knives?

When we introduce legislation, we must ensure that it is enforceable and does the things that it is intended to do. Iain Gray is entirely wrong to suggest that no initiatives are taking place, whether on violence or on knife crime in Scotland. The work that is being done by the violence reduction unit, particularly in Strathclyde, is achieving substantial results, as is work against gang culture across Scotland. In asking an understandable question about the particulars of legislation that we will all have to consider soon, let us not in any sense demean the efforts that are taking place right now across our communities to get to grips with these long-standing evils in Scottish society.

I do not demean the efforts that are taking place in Scotland's communities; I argue that they should be matched by urgency and action by this Government. Of course legislation has to be implemented properly, but is the First Minister saying that his Government requires two and a half years to do that?

The truth is this: no one needs to carry a knife on our streets, and everyone who does so has the potential to use their knife. Mr Muir learned that lesson in the hardest way imaginable when he lost his son; so did Mrs Paton, whose 17-year-old son Adam was stabbed to death in Montrose. We owe it to them to learn the lesson, too.

At the very minimum, when someone is charged with knife crime, even for the first time, they should wait for their trial on remand or at least under supervision, with an electronic tag or a curfew, for example. I think that most Scots would agree with me. Does the First Minister also agree? If he does, will he act now to make that happen?

We will be bringing forward our proposals on knife crime. Clearly and obviously, many prosecutions take place in Scotland on knife crime at the moment. Legislation has to be correct in its definition and its implications.

Is not Iain Gray suggesting that he is ignoring the efforts that are being made? If someone asks a series of questions that suggest that legislation—important though that is—is the only method for tackling knife crime in society, they ignore the substantial work that is being done right now. One of the reasons why that substantial work is possible, of course, is that we have a record number of police in our communities. They are there to implement the violence reduction schemes that are working so well.

I say once again that I do not decry others' efforts to address knife crime; I question the urgency of the efforts of the First Minister and his Government. We will have a criminal justice bill that ignores knife crime, and we have a law to control knife sales that the Government cannot get round to using.

Of course knife crime is prosecuted, but here is the thing: 81 per cent of knife criminals—four out of five—who go to jail get a sentence of six months or less. However, the First Minister wants to abolish sentences of six months or less. Every single year, that will leave around 850 convicted knife criminals on our streets—on every high street in the country—free to carry, free to cut and potentially free to kill. Is that really the First Minister's message to Mr Muir, Mrs Paton and the victims of knife crime?

My message to the victims of crime is that this Government has put record numbers of police on to Scotland's streets to ensure that our communities are safe. The sentencing commission—something else that is coming forward from this Government—is designed precisely to tackle public concern about the length of sentences. People who commit violence should get long sentences, just as those who are part—as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice says—of the flotsam and jetsam of society should not be on short sentences in jail. That is exactly the move forward in the justice system that this Government is making.

I am interested in the distinction that Iain Gray makes, as if the effective action of police officers in our communities is nothing to do with the Government. I point out to him that, if it were not for this Government—supported by some other members in this chamber—which put the resources into the police service around Scotland, those officers would not exist to implement violence reduction methods. When it comes to supporting the police in Scotland in the coming budget, Iain Gray better remember that abstention is not enough.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1376)

I was going to say that I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future, but I suppose that, in a sense, I will be meeting him this Sunday in the Sunday Post.

Yesterday, my colleague David Mundell launched a private member's bill at Westminster to make our Scottish bank-notes acceptable everywhere in the United Kingdom. Today, my colleague David McLetchie—the Scottish Conservatives' chief whip—will lodge a motion in this Parliament to back David Mundell's move. Will the First Minister sign up to the campaign?

Scottish bank-notes are promisory notes and should be accepted by everyone throughout the country. I have campaigned on that issue.

On the precise definitions of legal tender, it would be wise to get an understanding and an assurance from the Treasury that it will not discriminate against Scottish banks in the issuing of notes. If that assurance is gained, the legal tender argument would be one way in which to enforce the acceptability of Scottish notes throughout the country.

On the face of it, that is a welcome endorsement. However, as is so often the case with the First Minister, it is, sadly, a hollow one because the SNP wants to ditch the pound and embrace the euro. Under the SNP, we could spend our Scottish bank-notes in Brighton but not in Banff and Buchan. Under the SNP, we could spend our Scottish bank-notes in Carlisle but would have to get rid of them before coming over the border to Kirkcudbright. Alex Salmond would exile all Scottish bank-notes and make them a foreign currency here in Scotland. Is it not the truth that the First Minister's smiling support for our Scottish bank-notes is a load of hypocrisy? He is the man who, given half a chance, would sign their death warrant in Scotland as the SNP rushes to join the euro.

I was smiling because I knew the answer to that question even before Annabel Goldie asked it. Before the Parliament came into existence, I went to see Monsieur Lamfalussy, of the European Monetary Institute, on that very issue and argued that it would be perfectly possible, because of the traditional banking practice that was established in the statute of the European Central Bank and respect for it, to have Scottish euro notes. Does Annabel Goldie know what Monsieur Lamfalussy said? He said "Oui." That means yes.

The Scottish Parliament information centre confirmed this morning that the Lisbon treaty does not permit a regionally branded euro note. Even if it did, would that not say it all about Alex Salmond? Rather than keep the pound and our Scottish bank-notes, he would settle for some centralised euro note with a bit of regional branding—probably his own face. [Laughter.] I was going to say, "Or perhaps a haggis," but perhaps some people would not know the difference.

I would settle for my cartoon in "The Broons", but I would not for a second speculate which D C Thomson character Annabel Goldie would represent.

On the substantive issue, I point out that there are provisions in the statute of the European Central Bank about ECB notes that are legal tender. There is also an explanation of traditional banking practices. That is why, way back in the mid-1990s, we went to argue the case for having Scottish euro bank-notes in the same way that we have Scottish sterling bank-notes. I hope that all of us will not just unite behind the acceptability of the traditional practices in Scottish banking, but welcome the wonderful new series of notes to celebrate the year of homecoming that has been issued by the Clydesdale Bank in Scotland.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1377)

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

My question is about traditional banking. Today, in Glasgow, Derek Simpson of the union Unite is wringing his hands over the Lloyds TSB job losses. Does the First Minister regret the irony of the fact that a union that backed the Labour Government's enforced takeover of HBOS by Lloyds TSB is now campaigning on those job losses? As those banking jobs add to yesterday's unemployment figures, does the First Minister support Parliament's work to get straight answers from banking bosses who have destroyed their businesses and Scotland's reputation for financial probity and expertise?

On the serious issue of the threat to financial sector jobs, I again met the senior management of Lloyds TSB this week to explore the range of announcements that it may make. No one would disguise the fact that there is a serious situation. Tavish Scott and I have debated the matter over the past few months, and we both believe that the best outcome for Scotland would be HBOS remaining an independent organisation, but we should welcome a number of things that Lloyds TSB has said. First, there are the terms of the Scottish board, which is chaired by Archie Kane. Susan Rice's appointment as chief executive is a positive step and, probably, as confirmed at the meeting on Tuesday, the announcement that the insurance business of the merged bank will be centred in Scotland is also a positive announcement. That does not take away from the fact that there is a thread of rationalisation and that there are implications for jobs throughout the financial sector as a result of destabilisation. However, given that the shareholders have decided the issue, we should welcome the positive aspects of announcements that are made.

Tens of billions of pounds of public sector pension funds have been hit hard by banking losses. The First Minister could bring together the people who control those pension funds in Scotland to speak with one voice. Does he agree that doing so would provide a substantial lever to get an explanation from the bankers? People are angry that the bankers have made monkeys out of the Government. Some £37 billion has gone from the taxpayer to the banks, and money has gone out of the door in bonuses to bankers in Northern Rock this week. People cannot believe the stupidity of the bankers who let Bernard Madoff get away with a $50 billion fraud. How could the Royal Bank of Scotland ask shareholders for £12 billion in a rights issue, knowing that there might be an £8 billion loss as a result of bad investment decisions?

Enron people were investigated and some were jailed. Should there be an investigation now? Who would carry it out? Do not we need steady, careful and considered decision making on banking boards and an end to their gambling with money that is not theirs and to their trading shares that they do not own? Should not we taxpayers, who are paying for the debacle, put people of quality on to those boards until the insipid and culpable regulation of banks catches up with the world that we, the people, are really in? The First Minister can bring together the voices of hundreds of thousands of people and the clout of tens of millions of shares to get the answers and action that people want. Will he make that happen?

I think that the committees of the Parliament should conduct an investigation into the deplorable practices across the banking sector, with one proviso. When they invite before them key figures in the banking and financial industry to ask them legitimate questions, they should also invite the regulators who allowed things to happen and the Government ministers who were in charge of policy over long years. As long as the committees of the Parliament consider matters in the round in such an inquiry, rather than concentrating only on the disgraceful practices in the financial sector that are being exposed, I support their ability to do that job. The inability of regulators to regulate and of policy makers in Westminster to recognise and realise what was happening should be considered in a rounded inquiry that considers the matter as a whole.

James Kelly has a constituency question.

The First Minister will be aware of the loss of 150 jobs at the Vion factory in Cambuslang, which is a devastating blow to all concerned. What action is the Scottish Government taking to alleviate the concerns of the workers there and their families? Does he agree that the priority of the Scottish budget should be to boost jobs and skills and thereby provide investment in areas such as Cambuslang?

I have already met the senior management of Vion to look for assurances on the future of not only the Cambuslang plant, but the many other Scottish plants. As the constituency member knows, the redundancies in question were in response to the loss of an order from Marks and Spencer, which affected a number of plants across the group.

The member will welcome the increased emphasis that we are putting on the partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—initiative in order not only to deal with redundancy situations, but to anticipate where early intervention can have helpful results. A good example is provided by Cumbernauld, of course, where many jobs were saved last year. The work of PACE should be supported by the Parliament, as should be the Government's early action to enable early access to funding from the European social fund and the European regional development fund, which will help employability and skills, particularly in areas that are afflicted by redundancies, such as Cambuslang this week.

---

Jury Trials

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has undertaken any early consideration of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland's proposal that juries should be dispensed with in the most complex or lengthy of cases. (S3F-1383)

The proposal by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland was one of 59 responses that the Government received in response to its consultation paper, "The Modern Jury in Scottish Criminal Trials", which was published on 18 September. All the responses have been independently analysed, and next week ministers will receive the report of the analysis, which will be published by the end of January. We want to weigh all the evidence before we reach a decision on any reforms to the current system.

Does the First Minister agree that trial by jury is one of the most fundamental aspects of the judicial system in Scotland? Can he assure us that if the Scottish system should ever change, the Scottish Government will ensure that individuals would be denied the right to trial before a jury of their peers only in the most exceptional or extraordinary of circumstances?

That is a fair summary. The consultation paper states:

"The Government wishes to open up these issues for debate. It does not wish to advance—at least at this point—any firm proposals for dispensing with jury trials. It believes there may be a case for the use, in the very longest trials, of additional, substitute jurors; and it invites views on the principle of this and also on some of the practical implications."

There were firm proposals in the consultation document—for example, on raising the upper age limit for jurors from 65 to 70, and reducing the exemption period from five to three years. Those are the sort of measures that would carry general support, but the Government will carefully consider the submissions before coming to a conclusion on the more controversial aspects.

Does the First Minister agree that it is the height of arrogance to believe that juries cannot understand certain things, which should be left to the experts? Does he agree that any proposals in that area should focus on ways in which information could be made more accessible and understandable to juries? Will he confirm that the role of the jury will be kept central in all trials in Scotland involving serious crimes?

The role of the jury is central. The argument does not rest on the arrogant—as Robert Brown puts it, and it certainly would be in that realm—assumption that jurors are not capable of understanding complex cases. The argument rests on addressing the imposition on people who serve on juries in cases that can stretch for many months, given what that does to their livelihoods and lifestyles. The firm proposals that were made in the consultation document try to address those very practical issues. It is obvious that that will not be done lightly—the matter will certainly come to the chamber for further debate, and the Government will consider the submissions carefully before coming to a conclusion.

The consultation examines the issue of recompensing jurors. Does the First Minister agree that jurors should be adequately recompensed for their vital contribution? The Scottish Government's consultation specifically invites views on the Irish model, in which there is no recompense for jury service at all.

At present, there is recompense for jurors in the Scottish system, but the consultation document argues that although the current system fulfils many of its purposes well, certain parts would benefit from modernisation. They include increasing the size of the juror pool—that is, increasing the number of people who are available for jury service. They also include addressing the list of excusals, the way in which people—I was going to say MSPs, but I am not sure about that—can opt out of jury service and whether that is fair to everyone, and the issue of juror compensation. If we did not think that there was an issue about juror compensation, it would not have been included in the consultation document, which examines ways in which we can modernise the system.

---

Creative Scotland

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will finalise the transition costs of establishing creative Scotland. (S3F-1385)

The costs of establishing creative Scotland will be set out in the financial memorandum, which will be presented to Parliament alongside the public services reform bill. We will make an announcement to Parliament regarding the costs shortly.

How will the First Minister restore confidence among the arts community in relation to the formation of creative Scotland? How will he resolve the allegations that have been made by 400-odd artists that there has been a lack of clarity and transparency in the process?

Until 11.26 this morning, no meeting had been arranged with the Scottish Artists Union, and two weeks ago the minister in charge could not say which body will distribute funds to the arts in Scotland. Is it not time for the First Minister to get a grip of the bill? I ask him, in doing so, not to reduce the issue to a merger in the public services reform bill but to introduce a standalone bill as soon as possible so that the Parliament can focus on how to make the change a success.

Putting the bills together is the quickest way to deal with the matter. As I understand the position, there is general support across the Parliament for the principle of the merger. The issue under discussion is how any transition costs might affect pledges to artists.

I take it from the formulation of Pauline McNeill's question that a meeting is arranged. I think that she should just accept that a meeting has been arranged and welcome that. The other thing that she should welcome is the guarantee that the Government has given that no money that has been budgeted to provide grants to artists will be used for transition costs. I would have thought that that would reassure people throughout the artistic community.

If I was one of those nasty, politicking folks, which I am trying so hard not to be, I might contrast our position with that described in a written answer from Pauline McNeill's colleague, the then minister, Patricia Ferguson, who said:

"I do not anticipate any costs involved in the establishment of Creative Scotland that will require specific funding in addition to the general administrative costs of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 14 November 2006; S2W-29736.]

It is fantastic that the previous Administration did not think that there would be any costs at all. I contrast that with the reassurance that the current Administration has already given that no grants to artists will be cut as a result of the inevitable transition costs.

Can the First Minister confirm that, under current plans, creative Scotland will not be the lead body in disbursing future arts funding but that Scottish Enterprise will have that responsibility? Would it not have saved valuable time and scarce funding, and prevented a total collapse of morale in Scotland's creative community, if that decision, no matter how controversial it is, had been made during the passage of the original bill?

The bill and its provisions will be brought forward, but I have to say that, in a year that has seen the flourishing of the arts across Scotland, with magnificent new events being planned the length and breadth of the country, and at a time when our national galleries and great national collections are looking forward to a renewed and revitalised future with record levels of investment, it is extraordinary that Ted Brocklebank, with his enormous knowledge of these matters, should talk about demoralisation. We are seeing a renaissance, and he should recognise that.

---

Scottish Water

To ask the First Minister what conclusions the Scottish Government has reached on its on-going review of the structure and operations of Scottish Water. (S3F-1381)

We are keeping those matters under review, as we promised during the debate on 21 February last year. At present, Scottish Water is performing well as a publicly owned corporation. It is delivering services to customers at performance levels beyond the targets agreed with Government.

I thank the First Minister for that holding answer. Given that £182 million of public money is involved each year, the Conservatives believe that a formal, independent review is required. Stewart Stevenson, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, has said:

"We are confident and we do not fear a review. Indeed, to use a phrase that I have used before, such a review by a new Government would be normal, natural and necessary." —[Official Report, 21 February 2008; c 6161.]

Was he right to say that?

The position is being kept under constant review, as we promised. I inform the member of some of the things that we are reviewing at present. We note with interest, and make comparisons between, the water charges for consumers in Scotland and what is happening south of the border. We notice that Scottish Water had the lowest increase of any water authority in the United Kingdom in the current financial year, and that the average household charge for Scottish Water is £310, compared with an average of £330 south of the border. We notice that Scottish Water is committed to, and will undertake, record investment of £2.5 billion over the next few years, which I understand is directly sustaining 6,000 jobs in the Scottish construction industry.

We also notice that, in its analysis of Scottish Water's efficiency gains, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland said:

"Scottish Water's achievement is unprecedented in the UK water industry."

As we pledged last year, we are keeping these matters under proper and constant review. However, I will say this: in giving value for money to consumers and the economy, the performance of this public corporation is rather better than that of mutualised or privatised bodies elsewhere. The parties in this chamber who want to sell off Scottish Water better answer if they think their model will perform better than this publicly run corporation.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—