Plenary, 25 Jan 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, January 25, 2007

Official Report 719KB 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-2667)

I do not intend any disrespect to the many distinguished members who will retire this May but, given Dennis Canavan's family circumstances, it is appropriate today to record our appreciation of his work over a very long career. In 1979, Dennis Canavan was the first parliamentary candidate I ever voted for. In my view, he was an outstanding parliamentarian over a long period, both as a Labour representative and as an independent member. As, I am sure, everyone else does, I wish him a long and happy retirement with his family and I hope that they enjoy it as much as he will. [Applause.]

At next week's Cabinet meeting, we will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

I echo the First Minister's comments about Dennis Canavan. Dennis is a man of principle. He has had an incredibly difficult time of late. I know that we all wish him and his family the very best for the future.

Today is Burns day. The bard said that we should

"see oursels as others see us"

because that would free us "frae monie a blunder". Talking of blunders, I refer the First Minister to yesterday's court ruling on prisoners' voting rights. We are told on page 3 of the court's judgment that the Scottish Executive was given notice of the appeal when it was lodged back in 2004, that under the Human Rights Act 1998 it had a right to become involved, but that it chose not to become a party to the case. Why did it make that choice?

Because there is no constitutional responsibility. The matters in front of the court are rightly the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, which has a legislative and statutory responsibility for the conduct of Scottish elections. Despite what Ms Sturgeon might wish to imply to the contrary, it has been made very clear this morning by the UK Government through the Scotland Office that the Scottish elections will go ahead and that yesterday's judgment does not affect that in any way. In fact, I received a written confirmation to that effect from the Secretary of State for Scotland this morning.

I suggest that the First Minister reads the judgment, which makes it clear that under the Human Rights Act 1998 the Scottish Executive had a right to get involved in the case but opted not to do so. I say to the First Minister that that choice represents an abdication of his Government's responsibility, even on reserved issues, to ensure that the Scottish interest is taken fully into account.

Is it not the case that, according to the judgment, the UK Government was slow, bungling and acted with complete disregard to the imminence of the Scottish elections?

Does the First Minister agree with David Cairns, who spoke on the radio this morning, that the Government's failure to find an acceptable solution before the Scottish elections opens the door to the appalling prospect of criminals suing for breach of human rights? Surely, after the slopping-out fiasco, that should never have been allowed to happen again.

It is for Mr Cairns to answer for himself on such matters. I think that he did so quite clearly this morning. No attempt by Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish nationalists to whip up an issue in an inaccurate way that misrepresents the facts of the situation can take away from that.

Mr Cairns made it clear this morning that the Scottish elections will go ahead. He made it clear that despite what was said by the nationalists yesterday, any financial compensation that might—and only might—need to be paid would be the responsibility of the UK Government and not of this devolved Government in Scotland.

Because the UK Government is responsible for the conduct of the elections to the Scottish Parliament, it is its responsibility to fight this case in court. That is what it did. The UK Government must examine the court's judgment, but it has made clear that the elections in Scotland will go ahead. I would like Ms Sturgeon to get on with the business of fighting the election campaign and give us some issues to talk about instead of this sort of nonsense.

I sometimes wonder what planet the First Minister lives on. I do not think that many people in Scotland consider the issue of criminals suing the taxpayer to be nonsense; I think that they consider it to be a grave issue.

David Cairns said this morning that there will be a bill to deal with the matter. Is it not the case that most people in Scotland, me included, do not think that prisoners should have any right to vote, but if the Government believes—as it said in court—that the law must change, was it not incumbent on it to sort something out before the election and to find a solution acceptable to the public and to the courts? Instead, we have a catalogue of incompetence and delay, as a result of which taxpayers—many of whom are struggling to pay their own council tax—will have to foot the bill for legal aid and compensation payments to criminals. Do Scottish taxpayers not have an absolute right to be furious with the First Minister and his colleagues?

I think that if Scottish taxpayers are listening to what goes on in the chamber every week, they will be furious with the SNP because of its consistent attempts to say anything to try to win votes and gain support at the election in May.

The truth of the matter is that Mr MacAskill was squirming last night on the television as he tried to get himself off the hook in relation to who should and should not go to prison and what the SNP's position on the matter was. The position of the UK Government is certainly the same as my position. I do not necessarily speak for the whole Executive on the issue, but certainly my position is that the UK Government's position is absolutely right. It is against the right of prisoners to vote. However, it has to take account of a ruling about the European convention on human rights. The reality is that it is doing that properly by consulting the people who matter most: the voters of the UK and of Scotland, who will ultimately be affected through tax and through the position at elections.

As we move forward on the issue, we all need to know not only what the UK Government's position is but what the SNP's true position is. If the reality is that the current position on prisoners' right to vote contravenes the European convention on human rights, will the nationalists comply with the convention or not? Will this simply be yet another example of the SNP using an issue in an attempt to break up Britain, to create independence and to create a constitutional issue out of a social or legal one? The nationalists ultimately have to answer some questions on those matters, rather than simply try to garner votes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The First Minister said, in his answer to the deputy leader of the SNP, that he is not speaking for the Executive. This is question time on the First Minister's role as leader of the Scottish Executive. Will you confirm that he should be speaking for the Executive?

The general tenor of the First Minister's remarks was such that they were within his responsibilities as First Minister. I remind Ms Sturgeon that she predicated her remarks on representations by the First Minister and that her final question should be about matters that impact on Scotland or for which the First Minister has responsibility.

I suggest to the First Minister that he does not seem to know who he is speaking for or what he is saying. If he had bothered to read the SNP's submission to the consultation, he would know our position. We believe that prisoners should not have the right to vote, but that if change is necessary it should be kept to an absolute minimum. Is it not the case that the problem is that the Government has done nothing and has exposed Scottish taxpayers to the bill? Is it not the case that this is the second time in a week that the Westminster Government has been shown to disregard completely Scottish interests and the Scottish Executive has been shown to sit back and let it do that? Is it not time that instead of a pack of cowran, tim'rous beasties for an Administration, Scotland had a real Government that would stand up for the Scottish interest?

I will make two points. First, it is interesting that, this afternoon, Ms Sturgeon makes clear a position that Mr MacAskill was not willing to make clear on "Newsnight" last night. He was squirming last night, attempting to claim that the nationalists would have a blanket ban. Today, we have a confirmation that, even before that, the nationalists had a different position and one that would comply with the convention. Unlike the SNP's position on the issue, my position has not changed. It does not change from day to day. It remains that prisoners should not have the vote.

I hope that my second point will in some way answer Mike Rumbles's point. The reality is that Nicola Sturgeon does not want to talk about devolved issues in the Parliament because the SNP does not have the policies on education or health, or any consistent policies on transport. It has nothing to say about the interventions in the Scottish economy that will make this country prosperous and successful in the future. SNP members flip and they flop. They say different things on different issues from one week to the next. That is why, week after week, Ms Sturgeon brings to the chamber issues that are the responsibility of another Parliament. She does not want to debate the issues that matter here in the chamber. When she does, she will get far more respect from everybody else.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2668)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

The First Minister will, no doubt, be aware that his Labour colleague, John Reid, has ordered English judges to stop sending prisoners to jail, except those who commit the most serious offences. It is clear that Labour in England has given up on the fight against crime. Can the First Minister guarantee that neither he nor any member of his Executive or the civil service has ever, whether in writing, verbally or by implication, ordered or asked a judge or sheriff in Scotland to consider prison space before passing a custodial sentence, or suggested that they should do so?

To the best of my knowledge, which I imagine is complete on the issue, no member of any Executive that I have been part of here in Scotland since 1999 will have sought to issue a formal or informal instruction of that kind. We preserve the independence of the judiciary in Scotland, and we have enhanced that in our proposals for the more independent nomination of members of the judiciary that we have agreed with the appointments board and which I hope we will put on a statutory footing in the next session of Parliament.

I am sure that Scotland's judges and the public will find that an intriguing answer from a Lib-Lab pact whose attitude, frankly, is, "To hell with the victims. Let's pander to the prisoners." If we needed more proof of that, yesterday, the First Minister's Labour colleague, Pauline McNeill, effectively conceded that some prisoners will get the vote.

I did not.

Indeed, his Lib-Lab pact colleague Jo Swinson said that prisoners have a fundamental right to vote. In relation to the fiasco about prisoners' having a right to vote, which is completely unacceptable, the First Minister is seeking to blame the European convention on human rights, Westminster, Tony Blair or anyone else he can find, but he has already tried that trick with slopping out. Conservatives allocated the money to end slopping out, but Jack McConnell used it for something else. He cost the taxpayer £58 million—

Let Miss Goldie finish the question. Ms McNeill, I will come to you. Briefly please, Miss Goldie.

How much will the latest botch up cost?

As I said earlier, it will not cost the devolved Government any money whatsoever. Miss Goldie's last point—that money that could have, as she put it, ended slopping out was reallocated—is completely untrue. I have said that in the chamber before and I repeat it today.

I and my party are against allocating to prisoners the right to vote. The United Kingdom Government has made its position on the issue clear. Although the Opposition parties may wish to attempt to misrepresent that, it remains the position.

Court judgments have been made on which the UK Government is currently consulting to try to find a solution within the convention on human rights—that is its duty and responsibility—but it is clear that the objective of ensuring that prisoners lose some of their rights, including the right to vote, when they are incarcerated is absolutely correct, because prison should act as a deterrent as well as a place for rehabilitation.

I listened to the answer, but the trouble is that there is a credibility issue at the heart of the First Minister's position because, just last year in Westminster, Labour and the Liberal Democrats rejected a Conservative proposal to keep the ban on prisoners voting. Scotland's justice system has lost its way and the First Minister has lost control. Criminals are having money chucked at them to compensate for slopping out; convicts are sauntering out of jail halfway through their sentences; the Labour Party is begging judges to empty the prisons; and now prisoners are to be given the right to vote. It is little wonder that ordinary Scots are asking, "Why are criminals in Scotland getting off scot free?" Answer that, First Minister.

The Conservatives and the nationalists want to talk about the issue and distort and misrepresent the situation because they do not want to talk about crime and the issues that affect people in Scotland today. They do not want to talk about the way in which the devolved Government's policies have reduced crime in Scotland, increased the clear-up rate, increased the number of police officers on the streets and improved sentencing. They do not want to talk about the fact that we are toughening up the provisions on bail and those on sentences for the most violent and serious offenders or that we have introduced new offences and new restrictions on sex offenders and violent offenders. All those measures, which the devolved Government has introduced in the Scottish Parliament, were measures that people were crying out for back in the 1990s, when Miss Goldie was apologising for a Conservative Government that was doing nothing.

I remember, back in the election campaign in 1999, meeting future constituents who had been let down as victims and witnesses in the court system of the 1990s. They came to me to plead that the new Scottish Parliament should do something for them. That is precisely why we now have victim support units in every area in Scotland and new provisions to look after witnesses and ensure that they receive the proper respect in our courtrooms, and why police officers do not now waste time in our courtrooms as they used to do. It is because of all those improvements and the impact that they are having in Scotland that the Tories and the nationalists want to talk about something else.

Pauline McNeill may either make a point of order or ask a supplementary question to the First Minister.

Does the First Minister agree that it is not acceptable for members to misquote other members? In no way have I ever conceded that prisoners will get the right to vote. Like, I am sure, other Labour members, I have made clear my view that it is not right for prisoners to have the right to vote. However, we are dealing with a court judgment that tells the UK Government what it has to do. Does the First Minister agree that we have been forced into this situation because we have been instructed by the European Court of Human Rights that there is an issue, and that it is right for the UK Government to take its time to work out the meaning of the judgment?

I ask for a retraction from Annabel Goldie for misquoting me in the Parliament.

You can let that question go, First Minister, as it was really a statement.

I regret to say that I am not going to get the First Minister out of jail. My question derives from a ruling by the Court of Session this week that the Scottish information commissioner should have the internal papers that relate to the commencement of sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. My reason for raising the issue is that, in September 2005, I was given an assurance by the then Minister for Justice that the commencement would come along shortly, and the next Minister for Justice repeated that in January of last year, when I was told that the commencement was imminent. When will the measures be commenced? If that will not happen as soon as possible, why not, and might that have anything to do with the ruling in the Court of Session? If not, why are we spending so much money on keeping internal papers on the matter from people who wish to know about it?

I am happy to spell that out to Margo MacDonald in some detail in writing. [Interruption.]

If members would stop shouting and listen, they would hear what I hope will be a constructive answer. My understanding is that the original provisions in the act that was the subject of the court ruling this week were updated by provisions in an act recently passed by this Parliament. My understanding is that the provisions of that act will be enacted as of April this year—2007. I am happy to clarify all that in writing to Margo MacDonald, but that is my understanding of the position.

---

Senior Citizens (Poverty)

To ask the First Minister what further action the Scottish Executive will take to address the essential needs of senior citizens who are currently living below Government-defined poverty levels despite previous initiatives which provided free bus travel, free central heating and free personal care. (S2F-2670)

As John Swinburne recognises, we have taken significant steps to address pensioner poverty, lifting 120,000 pensioners from relative poverty since 1997. The work will continue, as is evidenced by the recent expansion of the free central heating programme.

Does the First Minister agree that fuel poverty among the elderly is a national disgrace? Fuel bills have doubled over the past three years. Since June 2006, wholesale prices of gas have dropped by more than 60 per cent, but no reduction has been offered to the consumer. Fuel suppliers in Scotland have diverse schemes whereby senior citizens can obtain rebates or deductions if they meet certain criteria. Senior citizens call that "the well-concealed kindly face" of the fuel companies. Will the First Minister consider calling an urgent meeting of the chairmen and chief executives of the main fuel suppliers in Scotland with a view to getting an across-the-board collective agreement for a 20 per cent reduction in the tariff charges to every pensioner household in Scotland, effective immediately, in return for doing away with their "well-concealed kindly face" schemes? Such an agreement could save countless lives this winter.

When fuel prices at source go down, the fuel and energy companies should reflect that in their prices—not only because of the positive impact it would have on pensioners but because of the positive impact it would have on hard-working families too.

I will reiterate something I said to the chamber before Christmas. The previous Minister for Communities met the energy companies about this issue. I will be happy to ensure that the new Minister for Communities supplies Mr Swinburne with information on the outcome of those meetings and on the actions that the companies have promised to undertake.

I am sure that discussions with the companies will continue, as will our efforts, in our own right and under our own responsibilities—yes—to put pressure on private companies to get their pricing systems right and to ensure through our public responsibilities that we provide the sorts of services for elderly people that not only ensure they are looked after well, but ensure that they are able to look after themselves well.

My final question is on a positive note. Will the First Minister consider fast-tracking a bill to means test prisoners? Senior citizens are currently means tested and regularly lose their homes to pay for residential care. If prisoners were means tested and they were awarded £1,000 for losing the right to vote or £3,000 for having to slop out, it could be pointed out to them that it costs more than £30,000 a year to have them incarcerated and that the sums awarded to them could simply be deducted from the £30,000, reducing their debt to society. Let the no win, no fee lawyers handle that one.

John Swinburne perhaps speaks for many of us in the sentiments behind his question.

I believe in the principle of ensuring that we can pursue those who are responsible for the most serious crimes in our society. That is precisely why there are new provisions, for example on the proceeds of crime, whereby we can ensure that the profits that drug barons and others have made from their crimes are recovered for the public purse and invested in communities, to ensure that the communities that have been damaged are assisted in being repaired.

Although the member's suggested scheme might not be conventional—it might not be legal—in expressing the principles that lie behind it and his emotional reaction to what seems to be an exceptionally unfair ruling that is bemusing victims and witnesses across the country, perhaps John Swinburne speaks for the whole land.

---

European Union

To ask the First Minister whether any recent steps have been taken in conjunction with the United Kingdom Government to improve the effectiveness of Scotland's representation within the European Union. (S2F-2675)

I have commissioned a report on those matters. It is currently in draft form and when it is finalised I will consider the recommendations with colleagues.

I take it that the document I have in my hand is the report that the First Minister commissioned. The report was sent to him and his Cabinet colleagues on 27 September and confirms that, in European negotiations, Scotland is undermined, sidelined and ignored by Whitehall and the UK Government.

Will the First Minister tell us what his response was when he and his colleagues received the report on 27 September? Is it the case that the report makes such uncomfortable reading for him and his colleagues, given that it vindicates the Scottish National Party's arguments for independence in Europe, that he dismissed it when he received it and he and his fellow ministers are now trying to discredit it? Will he explain to members and to Scotland why Lib Dem and Labour ministers circle the wagons to defend the reputation of Whitehall and the UK Government but do not stand up for Scotland and help the civil servants who are fighting for Scotland in Brussels?

The SNP's only contribution to the matter over the years, as I am sure Mr Finnie will testify, has been to undermine negotiations and Scotland's representation in Europe. We know that that has been consistent practice on the part of the SNP.

We also know that the draft report states:

"There is no more effective a position for Scotland than having one of the most influential Member States representing Scotland's interests within all 3 of the EU institutions."

We also know that when the President of the European Commission, President Barroso, was in Scotland last year, he said:

"I believe that Scotland has a voice and is heard in Brussels. They have a great respect for Scotland."

It is precisely because of the way in which Scotland's interests have been represented over the eight years of devolution, in this devolved Government and at UK level, that we have seen the many successes through changes in European Union legislation and decisions that have been important to Scotland. At the same time, as First Minister of Scotland I have a responsibility to ensure that that representation is further improved. That is precisely why the report was commissioned. In Europe, in London and here in Edinburgh we can make improvements. That is our duty and responsibility and it is what I intend to do and will do, no matter what the SNP tries to do to distort the position.

---

One Plus

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive intends to take to ensure the continued existence of One Plus. (S2F-2677)

I am very disappointed that One Plus, which has a terrific history that stretches back over a few decades, went into voluntary liquidation earlier this week. Perhaps because of that history, but certainly because of our commitment to the services that One Plus runs, we have worked hard in recent weeks with local authorities and voluntary agencies to put in place contingency arrangements, which mean that the vast majority of services that One Plus delivered will be preserved.

Does the First Minister agree that if 600 jobs were being lost anywhere else, the issue would have been the headline question in the Parliament today? I ask the Opposition parties to search their consciences and consider why that was not the case.

Does the First Minister agree that One Plus has supplied an invaluable service for 25 years? Some offers have apparently come in from Glasgow City Council and others, but they are offers of possible provision, so provision is not in place. The problem is that if the organisation is fragmented, the holistic approach that we talk about in the Parliament will be lost. We will lose the advice, which links to training, which links to child care—and other aspects of the organisation. It is imperative that the organisation is held together—

End your question, please.

Is the First Minister concerned about that? Does he acknowledge that the Executive spent more than £2 million on a campaign to teach us how to wash our hands? Will he wash his hands and cough up £2 million to save an incredibly important organisation?

I was about to say that I am grateful to Rosie Kane for raising such an important issue and doing so in such an impassioned and constructive way—until her last comment, which was frankly ridiculous. People sometimes die as a result of hospital infections. Helping to ensure that such infections are minimised is a serious requirement.

I agree with Rosie Kane that the services of One Plus are very important. I absolutely agree that it is important that the services that replace those that have been delivered by One Plus are of at least the same quality. It is important that the services that are being lost as a result of the liquidation should not simply be taken over by local authorities. One of the strengths of One Plus has been its nature as a voluntary agency and the way in which it has worked with parents and youngsters over the past two or three decades to improve services. I strongly believe that the services that are being transferred or taken over should, as much as possible, be transferred to or taken over by voluntary bodies. I recognise, however, that there may be a role for local authorities in the meantime to establish some continuity.

As we started question time two and a half minutes late, I will use my discretion to include Alasdair Morrison's question.

---

Broadband

To ask the First Minister how the introduction of broadband is progressing across Scotland. (S2F-2672)

The Executive has made highly significant progress in broadband deployment over the past few years. At the end of 2005 we met our commitment to deliver broadband to every Scottish community. With broadband now available to more than 99 per cent of the population, Scotland is ahead of most of the world in terms of coverage, and we are now investing in closing the remaining gap in hard-to-reach locations.

I am pleased to hear from the First Minister that we have established broadband coverage to more than 99 per cent of the population. It will come as no surprise to him to hear that I wish him and his agencies to continue to press for 100 per cent coverage.

Will the First Minister continue with the policy of the Executive and the United Kingdom Government of relocating civil service jobs outwith centres of population, given the advent of broadband installation? He will be pleased to hear that the example that has been set by his Executive is now encouraging the private sector to do likewise and locate and create jobs in such places as the Western Isles. On his next visit to the Western Isles, will the First Minister join me and colleagues from the council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to discuss how we can build on recent successes?

I normally meet local representatives when I visit the Western Isles, and I am sure that the issue Alasdair Morrison has raised will arise in discussions. I would wish to ensure—as, I am sure, would Alasdair Morrison—that we paint a positive picture of the recent developments that have taken place in the Western Isles and of the strategic approach that Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the authorities in the Western Isles have adopted to reverse population decline, to improve the level of services on the islands and to strengthen the economy of the islands. Those are important developments that, in the longer term, will not only secure an increase in the islands population, but ensure prosperity for those who live there.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—