Plenary, 22 Sep 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, September 22, 2005

Official Report 733KB 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-1819)

Cabinet next week will, among other things, receive a progress report following this morning's debate on the children of asylum seekers. I join other colleagues in welcoming the pupils from Glasgow who were with us for that debate and who have an immediate concern in its content. I give them an absolute assurance that, while we believe in a fair, consistent and firm immigration system, which has to include deportation and removal in some cases, we also believe that it is very important, given our child welfare and education responsibilities here in Scotland, that such a system is handled appropriately. That is why we want to have a protocol with the Home Office that involves Scottish education services and social services before decisions on the implementation of any orders for removal.

I congratulate the pupils from Glasgow, who have shamed the Scottish Executive into taking a stance.

When the First Minister outlined his legislative programme two weeks ago, he said, in relation to crime and disorder, that

"there is no excuse for non-action".—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18774.]

Does he stand by that statement?

Of course. That is why we have the biggest programme of reforms in our criminal justice system that Scotland has seen for generations. It is also why, in the first two years of this session of Parliament, we have seen reforms of the High Court, reforms in the management of offenders, the introduction of antisocial behaviour measures—which were fought tooth and nail by the Scottish National Party—and a whole range of other measures. We now see reforms of the lower courts, which will release police time, and we see reforms in sentencing and in the powers of the police, which will ensure that all our agencies can act more effectively and will enable us to reduce crime and to tackle those responsible for crime much more effectively in future.

I remind the First Minister, because he seems to have forgotten, that the SNP voted for the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. I can give him the Official Report later.

Is the First Minister aware of figures that were released to me under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 showing that in 1999, across Strathclyde and Lothian and Borders—Scotland's two biggest police force areas—1,100 people breached their bail conditions? By 2004, that figure had risen to 3,600—a threefold increase. Why has he taken so long to act to deal with what is a blatant and growing disregard for the law?

I have two points. First, we have heard statistics from Ms Sturgeon in the chamber before that have proven to be very unreliable afterwards, so it would be wrong to comment on those ones.

Oh, come on! That is pathetic.

However, it is absolutely right to comment on the importance of bail and remand—and no amount of shouting from Mr Swinney will take away from that fact.

It is important that we act on bail and remand, which is why, in the next few days, a comprehensive programme will be announced by the Minister for Justice. That will ensure not only a tightening of the availability of bail in Scotland, but a far more effective system of monitoring people who are out on bail, the conditions that have to apply and what happens to those who breach their conditions.

I hope that the First Minister is not doubting the veracity of the police figures, which show a clear picture. It is all very well for him to promise action in future, but we are not talking about a recent problem. Does he realise that the number of people who breach bail conditions has risen sharply every year since 1999? Is he aware that, six months ago, the Sentencing Commission for Scotland warned of

"the risks to public safety and good order when bail conditions are flouted"?

The commission went on to describe a "failing system" in which

"sanctions for breaches of bail are not always applied."

Is it not the case that the problem is not new—it has been six years in the making—and that the reason why it has got so out of control is that the Executive and the First Minister have turned a blind eye for far too long?

That is all a bit much, coming from the Scottish National Party, which was probably opposed to the setting up of the Sentencing Commission in the first place.

Of course we recognised that there was a problem. That is why the Sentencing Commission was established and given the job of dealing with the issue as its first priority. That is why, when the commission's report came in, we did not just accept it, but considered whether additional measures would be required. We have a package of measures and I hope that, when those measures are introduced, Ms Sturgeon will be big enough and brave enough to welcome and support them, because that is what the people of Scotland expect. They want us to look to the future rather than to the past, as the SNP always seems to want to do. They want the Parliament to act in their interests, to take the right decisions for the future and to ensure that we have a safer Scotland as a result.

The Sentencing Commission was the SNP's idea in the first place. The First Minister can peddle inaccuracies about the SNP for as long as he likes, but it will not detract from the truth, which is that on crime, as on so many other issues, the Executive talks a good game, but delivers very little. When will he stop promising action at some time in the future and start delivering on crime for the people of this country?

Let me give a few facts on the crime situation over the past few years. Scotland has record numbers of police officers and a record clear-up rate of crimes. A number of additional measures are coming in, such as the antisocial behaviour laws, which the SNP fought tooth and nail. The SNP was dragged in to voting for those laws at the end of the process, but it was strongly against them in the beginning.

What is more, the SNP condemned one of the most significant measures that the Parliament has taken over the past two years—the contracting out of the prisoner escort service, which released police time and got 350 more police officers back on the beat, doing the work that they signed up to do. The SNP was against that measure then and is against it today; it still condemns the Minister for Justice, even though that is one of the most effective things that we have done to help local communities and to get police back on the beat.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1820)

I am looking forward to meeting the Prime Minister in Brighton next week and to hearing his conference speech.

We will all be going to the seaside shortly.

I want to pursue with the First Minister similar issues to those that Ms Sturgeon raised. He will probably be aware of the conviction last week of a man who committed two rapes in Orkney, the second of which occurred while the accused was out on bail and after a condition banning him from staying in Orkney had been overturned on the ground that it breached his human rights, which left him free to commit another rape.

I do not think that the First Minister has turned a blind eye to the issue. In his statement on the legislative programme, he talked about toughening up the granting of bail and imposing more conditions on those prisoners who are granted bail. I give him credit for that, but can he guarantee that the new conditions of which he speaks will not suffer the same fate as the condition that applied in the case in Orkney and fall foul of the European convention on human rights?

I thank Mr McLetchie for the constructive way in which he put his question. Although it would obviously be remiss of me to comment on an individual case, it is important to talk about the generality of the policy and the actions that we propose to take.

We propose to take action to ensure that the conditions under which bail is available are far clearer and more consistently applied in Scottish courts. We want to ensure that the activities of those prisoners who are out on bail are supervised far more effectively, so that conditions that have been applied are properly implemented. We also propose to take action to ensure that those who breach bail conditions are tackled far more effectively and quickly than in the past.

We will outline that package of measures to the Parliament in the next few days. All three measures are important. They form an integrated package and all of them will have been properly scrutinised to ensure that they are compliant with the law in other respects in advance of the announcement.

Many of us are sceptical that a measure such as electronic tagging will necessarily have the effect of preventing people from committing serious sexual offences such as were committed in the Orkney case. I put it to the First Minister that the only effective way of protecting the public in such situations is to ensure that those who are charged with serious offences of that nature and have previous convictions are remanded in jail. Does he agree that we should return to the system that we used to have in Scotland, whereby there is a presumption against bail for certain categories of crime, such as murder, and a presumption against bail when the accused has a previous conviction for other serious crimes, such as rape?

Mr McLetchie makes a serious point. It is important that the law in Scotland is far clearer on the point and that it is more consistently applied across our courts. We intend to introduce a package of measures, as proposed by the Sentencing Commission and considered by the Cabinet during the summer months, among which will be provisions to deal with the specific issue. We will announce those measures to the Parliament next week.

I point out to the First Minister that, about five years ago, our law on bail was changed to bring it into line with the European convention on human rights. That change is preventing us from denying bail to certain categories of accused persons. Does he agree that we need to do more than simply tinker at the edges of the issue and that we have to get to the heart of the matter, which requires a review of the operation and application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the co-operation of Her Majesty's Government?

First, it is important to reiterate that individual decisions about bail are, as they should be, the responsibility of the judge who is presiding in the court. That important principle is, of course, an integral part of our Scots law. At the same time, it is important that we have absolute clarity in the guidance, both in legislation and in other ways, to those who are responsible in our courts. We intend to do that.

We do not intend to tinker at the edges. We intend to ensure that there is a full package of reforms, not just in legislation, but in the way in which the courts, the police and other authorities implement and scrutinise bail conditions, to ensure that those who breach their bail conditions are properly dealt with. That package of measures will be announced to the Parliament next week. I hope that both Mr McLetchie and Ms Sturgeon will feel able to welcome it constructively.

There will be one important constituency supplementary.

The First Minister will be aware of the sentencing of a man yesterday for rape in Glenrothes. He was on the sex offenders register, he had a previous conviction for rape and he had been assessed as being at high risk of reoffending. Moreover, he had previously failed to comply with a supervision order. In spite of that, he was able to be housed where he could commit his most recent crime. Will the proposals that will be presented to the Parliament next week contain measures to improve the operation of the register and protect our communities from the actions committed by such individuals?

The proposals that will be announced next week by the Minister for Justice will refer specifically to bail and remand. Again, I do not want to comment on an individual case, but my understanding is that that case was not affected by bail and remand and that Christine May's question is about the sex offenders register and the management of sex offenders more generally.

We are, of course, also considering a report from the committee that was chaired by Professor George Irving on the management of sex offenders in Scotland and the operation of the register. The Minister for Justice will announce our response to that report in early October. That response will not only include reference to the issues about the register that have been raised by Christine May, Paul Martin and others in the chamber in recent months, but will deal with the need for a national policy on the accommodation of sex offenders when they are in the community and not in custody. The issue has arisen in many constituencies and a national policy is needed to clarify how local authorities and others should deal with it. That should go alongside the national audit that has taken place of all serious and high-risk offenders.

---

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-1825)

I look forward to sharing a platform with the Secretary of State for Scotland on Sunday night in Brighton, when I am sure that we will discuss issues that are directly relevant to the delegates who want to ask us questions about the week ahead.

The First Minister will be well aware of this morning's debate in which we discussed the appalling treatment that was meted out to the Vucaj family when 16 people dressed in flak jackets smashed down their front door, burst into their house, seized the family, handcuffed the parents and dragged the parents and the children—still in their pyjamas—off to a van in which they took them away to England. Will he condemn that treatment here and now?

Robin Harper will know my position on not responding entirely to reports of what has happened in individual cases. However, the policy position should be clear. I congratulate Patrick Harvie and the Green party on constructively organising this morning's debate in a way that allowed other parties to come together with a positive policy in the Parliament on the issue.

When I met young students from Castlemilk High School and St Margaret Mary's Secondary School in Castlemilk on 27 June, they raised the issue with me very eloquently. They made the sensible and sane point that the young people under 16 who are affected by such removals also include those who remain in a school and have befriended the youngsters being removed in difficult circumstances.

Of course individual cases should be taken up by members of Parliament and should be properly reviewed—if that is what should happen—but it is important that we in the Parliament have a policy that education and social services should be involved in advance of any removal that involves a family with children who are under 16. That is in the best interests of those children and their peers in the local community, in which some of the children may have lived for up to five years.

From the tenor of this morning's debate, I am sure that all members welcome the Executive's commitment to convey to the Home Office our serious concerns about what has happened in Scotland. Will the First Minister assure us that he will convey those concerns in the strongest terms to the Home Office? Does he agree that if he does not press the issues with the utmost force and does not—behind closed doors—condemn to the Home Office what has happened, we must entertain the possibility that we might not get far? If that happens, what will he do?

I have made it clear that we should seek to establish a protocol with the Home Office on the issue. That should be achievable if we advance our arguments responsibly and ensure that those arguments are within our devolved responsibilities, which is exactly what we will do.

I recognise absolutely that people wish to make points about individual cases. Representatives in such situations should make those points forcefully. At the same time, we must recognise that some situations could be dangerous for those who are involved in implementing removals and deportations, which must be an element of any immigration system.

We must take a responsible approach. An immigration system must exist and its application must be firm, fair and consistent. At some time, that system will involve removals and deportations. However, with our education and child welfare responsibilities in Scotland, we want to ensure that any youngsters under 16 who are affected because they are in a family that may be removed or because they are back here and have befriended such youngsters are properly looked after in Scotland's interests. We will seek to achieve that and we will keep the Parliament informed of our progress.

---

Child Protection

To ask the First Minister what safeguards are in place to ensure that suspected sex offenders cannot work with children or young people in sports-related and other environments. (S2F-1822)

The Parliament passed the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, which makes it an offence to employ an individual to work with children if he or she is disqualified from doing so. All organisations that recruit people to work with children can apply for an enhanced disclosure certificate from Disclosure Scotland, which will provide details of any convictions, state whether the person is on the sex offenders register or has been disqualified from working with children and give any other relevant information that is held by the police, including information on suspected sex offences.

Is the First Minister aware of the recent report by the Independent Football Commission, which reveals that young people have been vulnerable to abuse ranging from bullying by coaches and overaggressive parents to grooming by paedophiles who target them after seeing their pictures in match programmes or by masquerading as talent scouts? Is he also aware that the report indicates that teenage girls who work for contract caterers in football stadiums and other sports stadiums are often subject to inappropriate behaviour? The Scottish Executive has rightly taken the action that he has mentioned to protect our young people, but will he assure members that the measures that have been taken so far will cover the issues that the IFC has raised in its report?

I have not seen the report to which Michael McMahon refers and would certainly welcome receiving a copy of it. I am sure that the ministers who are most directly involved with the issue will be keen to take up the points that the report makes in advance of our announcements in response to Professor Irving's report on the management of sex offenders and related issues. The two matters may be entirely separate, but there may be a relationship between them that would allow us better to inform the recommendations and proposals that we will put to the Parliament. As I say, I am keen to see a copy of the report. The issues that have been raised by people who have been affected are serious and we want to ensure that the package of measures that we are bringing forward will deal with everyone who might be affected.

Notwithstanding the First Minister's detailed reply on sex offenders and the proposals for bail, will he ensure that the bail reforms clearly recognise people's human rights—which should not be blithely brushed aside—and the fundamental view that a suspect is not an offender until they are found guilty by a court of law, which is a foundation stone of our justice system in Scotland?

The points that Jeremy Purvis makes are valid. It is important that, in seeking to change the law and to improve the implementation of systems relating to sex offenders or to bail and remand, we put public safety at the core of our actions and decisions and achieve the right balance between the rights of those who are accused in any circumstances and the rights of victims who have been affected by people who have committed serious crimes. In making our proposals, I assure Jeremy Purvis and other members who have many concerns from different perspectives that we will seek to achieve such a balance, with public safety always to the fore in our decisions.

---

Violence

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive will take to address the issues arising from a United Nations report that designates Scotland as the developed world's most violent country. (S2F-1834)

I do not believe that Scotland is the most violent country in the developed world, but I believe that the nation is dealing with the historical legacy of a booze-and-blade culture that affects too many of our communities. We are acting to deal with that culture through a variety of measures, which include tough new laws to tackle knife crime in the police bill, which will be published before the October recess; gun ownership restrictions, including additional restrictions on air-guns, which we hope that we and the Home Office will announce soon; stronger sentences for violent offences; and action to deal with the underlying causes of violence, such as alcoholism, sectarianism and a number of other social problems in Scotland that have contributed to that culture for far too long.

With respect to knife crime, the First Minister could, through statutory instrument, have increased sentences under the Carrying of Knives etc (Scotland) Act 1993, which I introduced at Westminster.

Does the First Minister agree that the UN report does not sit well with the slogan that Scotland is the best wee country in the world? Should he not take the issues raised in the report very seriously? Does he agree that we require implementation of action, not talk of action? He would do well to start by ending the situation in which violent criminals are recycled through our courts and prisons through early release. Will he take early steps on that?

I remind Mr Gallie that automatic early release was introduced by the Conservative Government in a 1993 act; his Westminster Conservative colleagues were responsible for the introduction of that system into Scots law. I reassure the chamber that the coalition Government is absolutely determined to ensure that that policy is ended in Scotland so that we can have a reasonable and responsible system of sentencing and sentence implementation and so that people in Scotland will understand that, when we say that the sentence fits the crime, we mean it, unlike the previous Conservative Government.

Does the First Minister agree that there is a well-established link between violent crime and excess alcohol consumption? If he accepts that there is such a link, does he also accept that it is the Executive's duty to do as it is doing with tobacco and to try to reduce the overall consumption of alcohol across Scotland, not just in targeting binge drinking, but in recognising that alcohol is a very dangerous legal drug?

I confirm that we are determined to continue to act on the problems of alcoholism, alcohol abuse and alcohol overuse in Scotland. Perhaps the party conference season is not a great time to be talking about such matters, but they are serious problems in Scotland and they have been serious problems for far too long. We have to ensure that we have better licensing laws in Scotland and that we change our culture, particularly among our younger people.

I was particularly pleased to be able to visit a Co-operative store in a certain Glasgow constituency yesterday afternoon in which, as in all that company's branches, there is a strict policy of limiting the sale of alcohol only to people who are over 21, not just 18. Other shops and off-licences could consider that policy and support their staff in implementing it. The responsibility for such matters goes far beyond Government, but we will take our responsibilities seriously and lead the way.

---

Ageism

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's position is in respect of ageism. (S2F-1821)

It is important that we all stop thinking of older people as a burden and start thinking about how they can, and do, contribute positively to Scotland. With encouragement and support, older Scots can help to strengthen our communities and to give younger Scots a better start in life.

The First Minister can be justifiably proud of the Executive's record on unemployment, which stands at around 4 per cent. Because of ageism, however, in the five years prior to retiral, 40 per cent of men and 41 per cent of women find themselves unemployed and thrown on the economic scrap heap. What plans does he have to remedy that situation?

I have two things to say about that. First, when we talk about the skills that are needed and the learning that is required by our economy and by Scottish society more generally, it is important that we ensure that the process of lifelong learning is not limited to those under 40, 50 or 60 but that it is genuinely lifelong and gives people a chance to replenish their skills and to readjust to new working environments so that they can work until retirement age.

Secondly, in the 21st century, we miss another point if we only concentrate on that. Many older Scots could make a positive contribution not just to our economy—although that is the case—but to our society through helping younger people to read, getting involved in voluntary activity in the community, supporting families and supporting those younger generations who might not have role models or older people who can be there for them.

I think that we need to turn on its head the approach that we have sometimes had to improving services. Although that approach has all been good and beneficial, we need now to think about what positive contribution from older people we can encourage and support. That is the next big challenge. I am sure that John Swinburne will want to work with us on that.

I remind the First Minister that media reports suggest that each month there are around 35 cases of elderly abuse, which is possibly the most ruthless example of age discrimination. What programmes are in place to end that horror?

Off the top of my head, I am not sure exactly what programmes exist, but I know that a considerable amount of work is going on to deal with the abuse of the elderly. That work includes monitoring as well as action to tackle the problem. I will ensure that the appropriate minister writes to Christine Grahame with a full answer as soon as possible.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—