Plenary, 27 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, January 27, 2005

Official Report 735KB 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-1380)

At the next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet, we will discuss our progress in building a better Scotland.

Does the First Minister recall that, exactly two years ago today, the Parliament passed the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003? That act guaranteed the public a right of access to land, including—this was a deliberate decision—land that is owned by the Queen. Why is the First Minister letting Westminster overturn that democratic decision of the Scottish Parliament?

Nothing could be further from the truth. If I remember rightly, the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was changed two years ago by an amendment that was lodged by Dennis Canavan. That happened after I became First Minister and with my whole-hearted support; I gave my absolute support to Dennis Canavan's objective on that occasion. The Executive would do nothing whatsoever to undermine the provision.

The proposals that will be put before the Parliament next week, as a result of the United Kingdom Parliament's Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, will not at all cut across the land reform that was agreed by the Scottish Parliament or the rights of access that the Executive has established for people in Scotland.

It is expected that any new provisions will apply only to the three royal residences in Scotland and not to any surrounding estates. The absolutely crucial point to make is that the Scottish Parliament will have the final say in any decisions that are taken on the matter. That is why the proposal is being put to the Parliament next week.

I understand why some members may perhaps have genuinely misunderstood the situation, and the Executive is happy to clarify the matter for them. Others, perhaps, are less genuine in their misunderstanding. The reality is that the proposals that will be put before the Scottish Parliament next week will extend the powers of the Parliament and ensure that the Parliament remains in control of the situation. Ultimately, the proposals will ensure that decisions are not made by the UK Parliament in London.

I appreciate that I have the advantage over the First Minister of having had a legal education. If he were to read the Westminster bill, even he would understand that it makes a criminal offence of simply being on land that is owned by the Queen. In other words, it makes a criminal offence of someone walking their dog on the Balmoral estate, for goodness' sake! Clearly, that overturns the will of the Scottish Parliament. [Interruption.]

Order.

The Executive has told us that the Queen has no problem with the right of access. The police have sufficient powers to deal with anyone who acts criminally on royal land. Why is the First Minister letting Westminster ride roughshod over the decisions of the Scottish Parliament?

That is simply untrue. Given the provisions that will come before the Parliament next week, it is either mischievous or seriously malevolent to make those suggestions. The provisions will not allow the Westminster Parliament or the UK Government to establish new laws in that way. They will allow the Scottish Parliament, and only the Scottish Parliament, to establish an order to designate specific sites in Scotland on a restricted basis in order, in particular, to ensure the security of our head of state.

It is absolutely right and proper that, through the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill and through the decision of the Scottish Parliament, we will ensure the existence of those provisions. Ultimately, given that the decision to implement any of those provisions will be a decision of the Scottish Parliament, we need to ensure that the law in this instance is as tight as it possibly can be. The law will be controlled in Scotland; the orders will be established in Scotland and not elsewhere.

The First Minister should go away and read the Westminster bill. It is clear that the bill takes away a right that was bestowed on the people of Scotland by the Scottish Parliament. The First Minister has got so used to handing back power to London that he cannot recognise when he is going too far. Surely it is bad enough that Sewel motions are used repeatedly to pass the buck on issues that members of the Scottish Parliament are paid to deal with but which the First Minister thinks are too hot to handle, without a Sewel motion now being used to give London the power to overturn a decision of the Scottish Parliament. Will the First Minister concede that this is a Sewel motion too far? Will he stand up for the powers of the Scottish Parliament and withdraw it immediately?

That is complete rubbish. If the Parliament rejects the motion next week, it will hand back the power to the Westminster Parliament to make those decisions without even consulting this Parliament, never mind with the agreement of this Parliament. That is a fundamental point.

The Railways Bill, the Sewel motion on which was agreed to yesterday, gives new powers to the Scottish Parliament. The Gambling Bill, the Sewel motion on which was agreed to last week, gives new powers to the Scottish Parliament. The National Lottery Bill, the Sewel motion on which will be decided on by the Parliament this afternoon, gives new powers to Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 gave new powers to the Scottish Parliament and to Scottish ministers, and the Energy Act 2004 gave the Parliament new powers and a new role in nuclear decommissioning.

All five of those areas involve new powers for this Parliament being agreed in partnership with the Westminster Government. That is where the nub of the matter lies. This is not about the individual Sewel motion on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill and not about any attempt by Ms Sturgeon to deceive people about what that might mean. This is about the Scottish National Party—and unfortunately on this occasion its allies, the Tories—and its opposition to partnership working with the United Kingdom Government. The SNP does not want the Scottish Parliament to have more powers in order to work better with the Westminster Parliament. Ultimately, the SNP would prefer to debate the constitution than to protect our head of state.

The First Minister mentioned five Sewel motions, but has he not forgotten to mention the other 51, which took powers away from this Parliament and gave them back to London? The Sewel motion on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill goes even further, because it gives Westminster the power to overturn democratic decisions that the Scottish Parliament has already made. Is it not time for the First Minister to accept that he has got it wrong, to stand up for the Parliament and to remove the Sewel motion? He should do that now.

Some of the best legislation that has been implemented in the United Kingdom and has had a good impact in Scotland has come through the Sewel process during the past five and a half years. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, for example, is making a huge difference in the fight against drugs and serious crime in Scotland. It, too, was agreed through the Sewel process, and I remember the complaints from the Scottish National Party. I even remember the Scottish National Party voting against a Sewel motion on a bill that would allow blind people to take their dogs into taxis, just because it disagrees with the so-called constitutional principle that is at stake.

Ultimately, the process is about working in partnership with the UK Government, ensuring that the right decisions are made here in Scotland and not in London, and ensuring that the Scottish Parliament has more powers and not fewer. Ultimately, it is about ensuring that rather than debating on a constitutional pinhead, we protect our head of state in Scotland, where she belongs.

Before question 2, members will wish to welcome His Excellency Jean-Louis Wolzfeld, the ambassador of Luxembourg. [Applause.]

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1381)

I have no plans for a formal meeting with the Prime Minister.

As the First Minister will be aware, the Conservatives in this Parliament supported the Executive in yesterday's debate on the Sewel motion on the Railways Bill, which will devolve further powers to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. However, as the First Minister will also be aware, Lord Sewel himself has pointed out that Sewel motions were supposed to be an occasional device for use when matters would be more appropriately legislated for on a UK basis. Since 1999, such motions have been used in this Parliament 56 times and there is more than a hint that they are being used for political expediency and in an inconsistent manner. Does the First Minister agree that the extensive use of Sewel motions in this Parliament, coupled with the experience of the Railways Bill yesterday, demonstrates that there is a need for an overview of the respective responsibilities of Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, and that the Scotland Act 1998 might be far from perfect in that regard?

That is an interesting question, coming from Mr McLetchie. One benefit of the Sewel process during the past five and a half years has been that, far from taking powers away from this Parliament—on not one occasion has the Sewel process been used to do that—it has ensured that this Parliament makes the decisions on those matters. In a number of cases over the past five and a half years, additional powers have been delegated and devolved to this Parliament and to Scottish ministers under the Sewel process.

Perhaps that underlines Mr McLetchie's point that there are areas in the Scotland Act 1998 that need to be reviewed as time goes on. There are areas in which the line can become blurred and further responsibilities need to be devolved to this Parliament and to Scottish ministers. The Sewel process is one way—but only one way—in which that can be achieved and it has been achieved with this Parliament's consent on each and every occasion. The process ensures that the Westminster Parliament does not make decisions that this Parliament would oppose. That benefit is the reason that the Sewel convention was set up.

I welcome the First Minister's recognition of the need for review in light of the experience of the operation of this Parliament. Is he aware that Lord Sewel, who has said that the Scottish Executive's use of such motions can be construed as a means of avoiding political debate and controversy, has called for a radical review of the way in which the process operates? We need to establish a clear set of principles as a basis for progress. For example, why do we need a Scottish wing of the proposed UK serious organised crime agency when we already have a Scottish serious crime squad—the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency—which was established by the Executive? The SDEA is accountable to Scottish ministers and it already works perfectly well with other forces and agencies both in Britain and abroad.

Mr McLetchie raises a serious issue, which will be debated along with a number of other serious issues in the debate on the Sewel motion next week. The motion will seek agreement not only that appropriate powers should be given to ensure that the new serious organised crime agency can work properly with our Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which has made such a difference to tackling drug crime in Scotland, but that new compulsory investigative powers should be granted to enhance police investigations of serious organised crime. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill will ensure that those powers are appropriate under Scots law as well as in the United Kingdom context.

In addition, the bill will introduce new financial reporting orders to ensure that those who are convicted of serious financial crimes can be pursued. It will also ensure timely Scottish implementation of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, the UN Convention against Corruption and the European Union framework decision on asset freezing. Those are all critical aspects in the international battle against serious organised crime.

The bill will introduce regulation of the private security industry in Scotland. Members from all parties have called for action on that for some time. Crucially, as I pointed out earlier, the bill will also give this Parliament the right to designate limited sites to protect our head of state and it will ensure that those provisions are similar across the UK but appropriate to Scots law. It will allow those matters to be decided by this Parliament rather than by Westminster.

In all those areas, the Sewel procedure will allow proper working between the serious organised crime agency and the law enforcement agencies and courts of Scotland. It will ensure that this Parliament has the powers over the areas for which it should be responsible. It will also allow this Parliament to protect the land reform legislation and the right of access to land that all of us—I agree with Dennis Canavan—hold dear.

The First Minister may say that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill has all those worthy features, but the key issue is not whether the bill has those features but who should exercise the legislative competence for introducing the provisions. On the specific aspect of whether we need a UK serious organised crime agency, the First Minister will be aware that the Scottish Police Federation has expressed the view of Scotland's police officers, who ask why we should change a system that, in their view, is working perfectly satisfactorily. Now and again, is it not sensible to take the position that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it? There is no need to move forward in a way that disregards the views of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Police Federation.

If I remember rightly, the Conservatives made exactly the same point about the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill last year. They might even have used the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." In Christine May's Central Fife constituency, a number of neighbours in Leven are very grateful for that new law, as a result of which they will enjoy peace and quiet this weekend. That was an example of the Conservatives getting it wrong on crime and the Executive getting it right. I am sure that the same will be true of the plans for the serious organised crime agency.

We move to constituency questions.

The First Minister will appreciate the fear that has been generated in Paisley as a result of yesterday's horrific stabbings. Will he assure members that the efforts of Strathclyde police to apprehend the attacker will have his full support? In light of the stabbings, will he also redouble his genuine commitment to tackle the menace of knife crime in our communities?

Our starting point on these issues should always be to share sympathy with the victims, to wish them a speedy recovery and to wish the forces of law and order great speed in tracking down the attacker or attackers responsible. The police will have our full support in doing that.

Such incidents reinforce the need for new measures to tackle knife crime in Scotland and to strengthen the law and the operational provisions that are available to our police forces. We will continue with our plan. Just before Christmas, five key points were announced: a new licensing scheme covering those who sell knives and offensive weapons; an increase in the minimum age of purchase from 16 to 18; a ban on the sale of samurai swords; more stop-and-search powers for the police; and a doubling of the sentence for possession of a knife from two to four years. All those measures will be taken forward by ministers this year.

Will the First Minister join me in congratulating Fife constabulary and Fife Council on their innovative and successful use of powers under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to obtain a closure order on a flat in Leven? Does he agree with Mr Richard Martin that that act of Parliament was required to deal with his intolerable situation? What lesson does he believe that the Parliament and the people of Scotland can learn from the case?

I welcome the action and hope that the neighbours to whom Christine May refers will enjoy a more peaceful time in the weeks and months to come than they have had recently. I am glad that the action that we took in the Parliament last year has resulted in prompt action by Fife Council and the police in Fife.

I have no idea how Christine May's constituent votes, and I am sure that the way in which he votes would never influence the police or Fife Council to take action to support his cause. However, I hope that he remembers that, if people had voted SNP or Conservative in bigger numbers at the 2003 election, the provisions of the 2004 act would not exist, less action would have been taken across Scotland against antisocial behaviour and those parties that are weak on crime would have taken to the floor.

---

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-1398)

I have no plans for a formal meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Does the First Minister recognise the huge benefits to Edinburgh of reduced congestion, air quality improvements and funding for world-class public transport that will come from the City of Edinburgh Council's plans for traffic improvement, including the £2 congestion charge? Will he condemn Edinburgh politicians, such as David McLetchie, who are scaremongering on the impact of congestion charging?

Shiona Baird will understand that I cannot comment specifically on the Edinburgh scheme, because ultimately ministers will have a role in agreeing the orders to implement it, if there is a yes vote in the referendum and the proposals are submitted to us in due course. However, I will make a couple of points.

First, Edinburgh needs better public transport, which it will get in part through improved Government funding and city council funding. However, if the citizens of Edinburgh vote for congestion charging, that will provide another revenue stream; that is the choice that is before them. Secondly, congestion charging has worked in other parts of the world and other parts of the United Kingdom, so people should consider examples from elsewhere. I hope that those who advocate a no vote in the referendum will be as honest as those who advocate a yes vote and spell out the implications of a no vote, both for pollution in Edinburgh in the years to come and for the transport systems that may or may not be available.

I thank the First Minister for his positive comments. Will he support Friends of the Earth Edinburgh's protest this week against the Edinburgh Liberal Democrat councillors' hypocritical opposition to the council's transport plans?

That would be an act of extreme folly on my part. I have no intention of supporting that demonstration. This is an important moment for transport policy in Scotland. I hope that there is a serious, mature and informed debate on the issue in Edinburgh over the next few weeks. I hope that the people of Edinburgh will consider the matter seriously before they vote and take account of all the factors that they must consider. Ultimately, I hope that the decision will be taken for the future of Edinburgh rather than in the immediate short-term interests of the few.

---

Liberation of Auschwitz (Anniversary)

To ask the First Minister how Scotland will commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and the end of world war two. (S2F-1393)

A number of events will be held throughout Scotland to commemorate Holocaust memorial day, which this year—as I think everyone knows—is the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. I and other ministers will attend a national memorial service in Hamilton tonight.

Holocaust memorial day gives us the chance to remember the innocent people who were massacred and those whose bravery enabled thousands of people to survive the horror of the camps. It is important that future generations never forget the evil that took place during the Holocaust and at camps such as Auschwitz. That is why Peter Peacock has this morning launched an education pack for schoolchildren, which will be available to Scottish schools.

We intend to commemorate the end of the second world war in a number of ways, details of which will be announced in due course.

I thank the First Minister for his comments and for the announcement from the Minister for Education and Young People, Mr Peacock. I look forward to attending this evening's event along with the First Minister, my colleague Michael McMahon and others.

Will the First Minister join me in paying tribute to the many survivors of Auschwitz and the Holocaust who made their home here in Scotland following the second world war? They include Mrs Marianne Grant and the Rev Ernest Levy, who live in East Renfrewshire and who brought with them not bitterness or hatred but warmth, compassion and humanity. Does the First Minister share my pride in Scotland and in the values of tolerance and understanding that we showed, which allowed those survivors to make their home here? Does he agree that Holocaust memorial day is a timely reminder to us all of the need to treasure those values, which we hold most dear?

I thank Ken Macintosh for that question and for the chance today for our Parliament to associate itself with democratic politicians and people all over the world who should never forget the horrors of the Holocaust and, in particular, the horror that took place at the Auschwitz camp. I do not think that anyone who has visited the Holocaust Memorial Museum in the USA can be untouched by the experience and by the personal reflections of those who survived the camps and can speak about it today.

As Ken Macintosh says, we have survivors of the camps here in Scotland and it is vital that young Scots do not forget and are not allowed to forget what happened in the worst massacre, the greatest evil, of the 20th century. It is a scar on the history of Europe and one that we must ensure never happens again.

---

Affordable Homes (First-time Buyers)

To ask the First Minister whether any new measures will be introduced to assist first-time buyers. (S2F-1386)

Yes. We announced last autumn that there would be investment of £1.2 billion in affordable homes over the next three years, including an 80 per cent expansion in the low-cost home ownership programme and other innovative schemes. That investment will support the provision of nearly 5,000 new homes for low-cost home ownership throughout Scotland by 2008.

We have discussed with stakeholders new proposals for supporting low-cost home ownership based on shared equity and we will announce shortly the new measures that we will introduce.

Does the First Minister accept that the affordable housing crisis in Scotland is not only about accommodation for rent, but about the fact that many first-time buyers, who are mainly young people, are unable to get a foothold on the property ladder? Will he express concern in response to last week's report by the Bank of Scotland, which shows that in four out of five towns in Scotland first-time buyers—mainly young people, who are the lifeblood of those communities—are often unable to afford property in their communities, where they were raised and where they want to continue to live and work? Will he comment on the potential role of publicly owned land in addressing the problem, so that first-time buyers can afford to purchase property in their own communities?

Those are very important issues and we are taking a number of steps to tackle them. Not only have we introduced significant new investment over the next three years in low-cost affordable housing, but we are reforming the planning system and investing in new low-cost home ownership units over the next three years. We are developing new and improved funding instruments, particularly based on shared equity, and a planning advice note, which will set a 25 per cent benchmark for affordable housing contributions by private developers in Scotland. We are pursuing measures to increase the land supply for affordable housing, particularly in rural Scotland. Other measures are also proposed.

The issue in Scotland is serious and I am delighted that, contrary to some of the rubbish that was reported in our national press earlier this week, a number of schemes in Scotland are ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. In addition to house prices being cheaper in Scotland, more additional housing is planned in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. That should not only encourage young Scots to stay in this country to set up home and establish a family, but encourage other people to come here to live and work.

Does the First Minister acknowledge that more than 350,000 families in Scotland achieved their aspiration to be first-time home owners through the Tory right-to-buy policy? Will the First Minister give a long-term commitment to the policy, to assist families in the future?

Again, contrary to some of the rubbish that we read, there are no plans to end the right-to-buy scheme. Of course, there is the legislative commitment of the Parliament to review the scheme's operation, which the Parliament will undertake with the involvement of ministers in the normal way.

---

Marches and Parades (Review)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will deliver the recommendations in the "Review of Marches and Parades in Scotland". (S2F-1396)

The Executive has accepted and will take forward all 38 recommendations in the "Review of Marches and Parades in Scotland". I thank Sir John Orr for his well-considered and thoughtful report, which was published earlier this week.

Some of the recommendations will require primary legislation and will be included in the police bill consultation paper, which will be published next month. Subject to parliamentary debate and the responses to the consultation, changes could be in place for marches that take place in 2007. Other recommendations can be taken forward without legislation. We will work with local authorities and the police to co-ordinate activity and I hope that the communities that are the most affected by marches will begin to see improvements in the arrangements for marches that take place this summer.

Will the First Minister give an assurance that the necessary resources will be provided? As he indicated, there is a real opportunity to go forward by consensus on the basis of Sir John Orr's well-balanced report—I think that almost everyone who is involved has signed up to the process. If the approach is to work properly, some councils will need to undertake extensive consultation to ensure that the community is properly involved. It would be a pity if such work were thwarted because councils did not have enough money. A huge amount of money will not be needed. Will the First Minister give a guarantee that lack of resources will not hinder proper consultation?

As Cathy Jamieson confirmed the other day, we will want to discuss the matter with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with the local authorities that are the most affected. The important thing for us to do now is to secure support for the changes that are required, but we will build discussions about resources into that process. We must ensure that we build a broad consensus that includes the people who are most affected on the streets, as well as the people who live in the communities, so that we can take the matter forward and ensure that in Scotland we have better managed and far more orderly parades and marches in the summers to come.

Like Donald Gorrie, I welcome Sir John Orr's report. I recognise the sensitivity of the issues, partly because the headquarters of the Orange Order are located within half a mile of St Mary's Roman Catholic church. The issue is of great sensitivity in the community that I represent.

Does the First Minister agree that although local authorities should respect the right to march and to express political opinion when they consider the matter, the burden on communities in relation to inconvenience, frequency of marches and public safety should not be disproportionate?

The member puts the point very reasonably. Of course there is a right to march, parade and express opinion in this country. We live in a democracy and that freedom is important to us. However, communities also have the right to live in peace. It is vital that we strike the right balance between people who want to march and be involved, particularly in parades that might be offensive to others, and people in communities, who have a right to wander the streets in peace on some weekends of the year without fear and without an offensive march taking place.

Meeting suspended until 14.00.

On resuming—