Plenary, 29 Sep 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, September 29, 2005

Official Report 513KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1836)

I meet the Prime Minister regularly and we discuss a range of issues.

Perhaps when the First Minister next meets the Prime Minister, he will tell him that pensioners deserve far more respect than they were shown at the Labour Party conference yesterday.

On another matter, is the First Minister aware that the Enterprise and Culture Committee this week unanimously backed Dennis Canavan's bill to make St Andrew's day a national public holiday? Will the First Minister now join the growing consensus and back the bill?

The Prime Minister is well able to defend himself without my assistance. I understand that he apologised for yesterday's incident, and he was absolutely right to do so.

I believe that we, in Scotland, should celebrate St Andrew's day more and use it more to celebrate Scotland. That is why we have spent so much time and effort over the six years of devolution on increasing the profile of St Andrew's day internationally and on celebrating St Andrew's day more in Scotland. However, for a number of good reasons I am not yet convinced that there is a case for a public holiday on St Andrew's day.

The St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill would not guarantee a public holiday for everybody in Scotland. A decision to call a public holiday would not, in any case, guarantee a holiday for anybody, especially in the private sector; it would merely increase pressure on employers in the public sector to give an additional public holiday. If we are to consider the proposal, we need first to ensure that St Andrew's day is recognised more as a day of national celebration and, secondly, to think through the consequences and costs of such a measure far more effectively.

I remind the First Minister that many employers, including the Parliament, already give a holiday on St Andrew's day. Surely it is time that Parliament took a lead and encouraged more employers to do that to mark our national day.

Is the First Minister aware that Scotland has fewer public holidays than any other country in the European Union and that, more important, we are one of the few countries—not just in Europe, but in the whole world—that does not have a national holiday to mark its national day? Is not it time for us to catch up by using a St Andrew's day holiday to celebrate and promote Scotland both at home and abroad?

I have always taken great pride in St Andrew's day; I have done everything I can to promote Scotland internationally on St Andrew's day and in advance of St Andrew's day and in Scotland I have celebrated Scotland around St Andrew's day, but the reality is that St Andrew's day is not a recognised national day of celebration such as other countries have. I would like it to be such a day, but we are not there yet. More Scots celebrate Burns night than celebrate St Andrew's day.

I agree absolutely that, if we are serious about the matter, Parliament needs to take a lead. However, taking a lead does not mean just choosing the easy option. It is not just like giving a kid a sweetie; it is about educating people on how a St Andrew's day holiday could be used properly. Therefore, although the committee's report endorsed the general principles of the bill, it is important that we take into account that it also requests that Parliament have a serious debate on the effect of the proposals as well as on the deficiencies in some of them. When we debate the bill next week, I hope that we will do just that.

If the First Minister is not convinced himself——clearly he is not—will he acknowledge that many people in his party and in the Liberal Democrats do support Mr Canavan's bill? Will he at least agree with me that the bill should not be a matter for the party whips? Will he and his deputy, Nicol Stephen, allow their respective parties a free vote on the issue when it comes before Parliament next week so that the true will of the Parliament can prevail?

The Scottish National Party has been the most consistent of all parties in not allowing its members free votes, in disciplining its members for speaking out and in ensuring that good, long-standing members such as Margo MacDonald have had to leave the party simply for expressing their personal opinions. The SNP ensured that Dorothy-Grace Elder, who gave a lifetime to the Scottish National Party and who was a valued member of this Parliament for four years, was kicked out of the party and had to leave the Parliament. The Scottish National Party cannot give anybody lectures on free votes. Its members need to sort out their own internal procedures before they can comment on anybody else's.

I thank the First Minister for agreeing to meet me to discuss my bill; I look forward to persuading him to support it.

The general principles of the bill have the unanimous support of the Enterprise and Culture Committee and the support of a record 75 MSPs from all parties and none, and it has the support of 85 per cent of respondents to my nationwide consultation. Does not the First Minister agree that it would be absolutely untenable for the Executive to call on the people of Scotland to celebrate St Andrew's day while using the party whipping system to scupper a St Andrew's day holiday?

I understand Dennis Canavan's long-standing commitment to the idea of a St Andrew's day holiday.

Dennis Canavan was chucked out of the Labour Party.

Mr Swinney.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I remind Parliament that Mr Swinney was the leader of the Scottish National Party when all those people were thrown out of it for expressing personal opinions. The SNP did not have much to celebrate when he was its leader—certainly not individual opinion.

As Dennis Canavan knows, I am not instinctively hostile to his proposals. I recognise and respect his long-standing commitment to the celebration of St Andrew's day and the proposal that it be made a national public holiday. However, I hope that he will respect many members' view that if Parliament is to consider such a proposal, it is important that we think it through carefully.

The effect of Dennis Canavan's bill would not be to guarantee a national public holiday, as he says in the accompanying notes to the bill. Rather, it would simply increase pressure on public sector employers to release public sector employees at significant cost to the taxpayer, without anybody in the private sector getting an additional public holiday.

If we are going to celebrate St Andrew's day in the future, we must think through what we are doing so that we can do that effectively. I would prefer to do that on a cross-party basis and in a way that would move us forward rather than simply try to grab headlines like that crew over on the SNP benches. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for us to have a constructive debate next Thursday. The Executive will respond constructively to the committee's report.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1837)

At the next meeting of the Cabinet we will discuss our progress in delivering the commitments that were given in our 2003 partnership agreement.

In our exchanges last week, the First Minister said that he hoped that the Conservatives would welcome the Scottish Executive's proposals on reform of the law on bail. I welcome them, but with some reservations.

As the First Minister is aware, our present law on bail is already weaker than that which applies in England—it has been since 2000. In the relevant English statute, there are still categories of accused persons who are prevented from being given bail in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Will the First Minister tell Parliament whether the Scottish Executive proposes to introduce in this country laws on bail that will be at least as tough as those which apply down south? Will our statute use the same language about "exceptional circumstances"?

Mr McLetchie has used a cleverly worded question to imply that there are some outright exemptions to the availability of bail in England. That is not the case, as he perhaps acknowledged in the very last words of his question.

Mr McLetchie has used a similar approach in what he has said about the European convention on human rights. The document that the Minister for Justice published on Monday notes:

"The European Court of Human Rights has recognised a number of reasons which may make it appropriate to refuse bail".

Those reasons include obvious issues that would cause public concern, such as the possibility that the accused would

"Fail to appear for trial"

or would

"Take action to prejudice the administration of justice"

or, in other words, that the accused would interfere with victims or witnesses. Other reasons for refusing bail include the possibility that the accused might reoffend—an issue of serious concern across Scotland—and, fourthly, the possibility that the accused would

"Create a risk of public disorder."

Mr McLetchie is wrong to make such generalisations in Parliament, because it is important that people in Scotland clearly understand that our system of bail involves a judge making an individual decision in the light of the facts that are presented to him or her.

As the Government in Scotland, we are determined to have a clearer system of bail and remand that is more consistently applied in courtrooms throughout Scotland. We want clearer conditions that count against the granting of bail for people who are charged with the most serious offences, especially those who have a record of offending. Critically, we want to ensure that if people who are given bail conditions breach those conditions, their sentences will be disadvantaged as a result. Our specific proposal on Monday that a person who breaches bail conditions will have their sentence quadrupled should be welcomed by every party in the chamber.

The First Minister is right to say that I chose my language with care; I did not speak in generalisations but quoted from the statute. The relevant statue in England says that, in relation to certain categories of offender, bail will be granted only in "exceptional circumstances". My question was whether the same language will be used in the statute that will be introduced in this Parliament. I had thought that he would be able to give a fairly simple and straightforward answer.

The First Minister cannot, however, deny that whatever proposals are put in place, our law on bail will still be weaker than it was before changes were forced on Parliament as a result of incorporation into our law of the European convention on human rights. He has implied that our law will be the same, or as strong as, the law down south. Will he confirm whether such a change is necessary because law that is made by the Scottish Parliament is in an even tighter ECHR straitjacket than applies in England, or because the Executive chose as a matter of policy when this Parliament changed the law in 2000 to relax the law on granting bail?

First, Mr McLetchie has confirmed that there are no completely non-bailable conditions in the English system. He has stated that clearly, so he should not imply that anything other than that is the case.

The reality is that our proposals to amend statute to improve the criminal justice system will be appropriate for the Scottish legal system. Those proposals will be part of our overall package of reforms to Scotland's criminal justice system. The reforms are designed not just to toughen up sentencing, but to make it more consistent. They will ensure not only that people who are given a custodial sentence are required to undergo a proper process of rehabilitation, but that those who are given community-based sentences receive meaningful sentences that they remember for all time.

The package is designed to ensure that we have more specific laws and more consistent application of a system of bail and remand, and that we toughen up the system that deals with breaches of bail conditions. That is critical to ensuring that people go through the courts more quickly, that between appearances when they are outside the court system they are caught when they breach bail conditions, and that the sentence that is applied to them for that breach is additional to the sentence that they would otherwise have received. That is a comprehensive package. It does not deal with the issue in headlines or one-off single measures in statute. The package reforms statute, but it also reforms the system. That is precisely what we need to do.

Today it has been reported that the Vucaj family—Glaswegians for the past five years, whose treatment has so outraged people in Scotland, as we debated last week—were taken from their beds at 4 am this morning, to be removed from the country with nothing but the clothes that they wore and their Glasgow accents. Following that report and the First Minister's decision that a protocol needs to be put in place to defend the rights of the Vucaj children and others in Glasgow who are living in fear, does he agree that there must be an immediate suspension of dawn raids in Scotland?

If there is to be a system of immigration and asylum in this country, there must be a system for implementing the rules when decisions on individual cases have been made. There are two things wrong with the current system. I agree that there should be a system and that sometimes even force will be required to implement the rules. However, I also believe strongly that individual cases should be dealt with more quickly than happens at present and that people should not have to wait five years for a final decision. I also believe that, where that final decision involves deportation or removal from the country and a family with children under 16 is affected, a clear protocol should be established that involves education and social services in advance of any action being taken by the immigration authorities.

I discussed the matter with Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, on Sunday afternoon. He has agreed that the establishment of such an agreement in Scotland and, perhaps, elsewhere would be advisable. We will continue those discussions as soon as possible, to ensure that we in Scotland have a regime that ensures not only that there is consistent application of immigration and asylum rules but that the system operates humanely.

---

Incomes (Taxation)

To ask the First Minister what percentage of citizens live on less than £10,000 per annum, what action the Scottish Executive is taking to improve the disposable incomes of individuals and households living on the lowest incomes and whether it considers that they should be exempt from local taxation. (S2F-1842)

We have reduced the percentage of people in households living on less than £10,000 to 23 per cent by 2003. We are improving the lives of everyone on low incomes by supporting people into sustainable employment, driving down fuel poverty and extending concessionary fares. In addition, nearly a quarter of Scottish households receive council tax benefit and 400,000 receive full benefit.

I wish that the First Minister would answer questions. After eight years of Labour in power at Westminster and six years of the Labour-Liberal Executive here at Holyrood, 47 per cent of Scots live on incomes of less than £10,000 a year. In a rich country such as ours, almost one in two people are living on less than £10,000 a year. Will he today accept finally the dire need to help people on the lowest incomes by scrapping the unfair council tax and ensuring exemption for those who live on under £10,000 a year?

What Tommy Sheridan says is untrue. In 2003, the proportion of households in Scotland living on less than £10,000 a year was 23 per cent. The figure has come down dramatically since the change of Government in 1997 and since the establishment of devolution and the coalition Government in 1999. The best way for more people to find themselves above that income line and facing less of a challenge in respect of their household income is for us to ensure that there are more jobs and a more successful and prosperous economy in Scotland, and that people have the skills, the talent and the opportunity to participate in that economy. If people in Scotland are to get those jobs and be sustained into the future by a growing economy, the last thing that they need is the policies of Tommy Sheridan and the Scottish Socialist Party.

Deputy Presiding Officer—

No, Mr Sheridan, I did not call you to speak again.

I have to say to you that it is not the protocol that we have in this Parliament that when the smaller parties are offered—

Order. Mr Sheridan, you have a single supplementary. Occasionally you are given a second supplementary, but I have chosen not to give you a second supplementary today.

That is totally unacceptable. I wish to question—

Sit down, Mr Sheridan.

I will not sit down!

Mr Sheridan, resume your seat. I suspend the meeting.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

I call Jackie Baillie to ask question 4.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not wish wilfully to challenge the authority—[Interruption.]

Order.

I do not wish wilfully to challenge the authority of the chair, Presiding Officer, but I hope that you understand that this is the first time in two years that the smaller parties have not been given the right to ask two supplementaries. The First Minister specifically alleged that I had lied in Parliament. I want the opportunity to clarify whether he was referring to households when the question that he was asked referred to individual citizens, 47 per cent of whom live on incomes under £10,000 a year—

Mr Sheridan, I think that we have now moved beyond your point of order.

The First Minister should be gracious enough to accept that he is wrong, and to apologise for misleading Parliament.

Mr Sheridan, you have made your point. Please resume your seat.

Let me make it very clear that it is the responsibility of the occupant of this chair to decide who is called and how frequently they are called for a supplementary question.

It is fairness.

Excuse me, Mr Sheridan. You have had your say; I will now have mine.

As is my normal practice on the rare occasions that I take First Minister's questions, I called Ms Sturgeon three times and Mr McLetchie twice, although the Presiding Officer frequently gives them more questions than that. In applying the same rule, Mr Sheridan, I gave you the single supplementary that is your entitlement. In the case of Ms Sturgeon and Mr McLetchie, I had the foresight to advise their offices of what I was going to do, so I now apologise to you for failing similarly to advise you. I trust that that explanation is sufficient. On the basis that there has been a genuine misunderstanding, and accepting Mr Sheridan's comment that he is not attempting to challenge the chair's authority, I am prepared to consider the matter closed.

Mr Sheridan, I think that, if you are happy with that, it might be best if further words were left unsaid and we moved on to Ms Baillie.

---

Bail and Remand

To ask the First Minister how the new proposals on bail and remand will ensure greater public safety. (S2F-1839)

The new measures on bail and remand, which the Minister for Justice published on Monday, will tighten the provisions on granting bail, make the courts explain their decisions and ensure that breaches of bail conditions are dealt with more robustly.

I welcome the new measures, but key to the successful implementation of any justice reform is its application by the judiciary. Will the First Minister indicate the effect of the measures on the current practice that is followed by judges and sheriffs in granting bail? Will he also indicate whether guidance on arriving at bail decisions will be issued to the judiciary?

Guidance will be issued. Moreover, there will be a clear explanation in statute of the factors that will count against granting of bail, which will include provisions in relation to the most serious offenders and those who have a past record of offending. The courts will also have a clear remit in the new system to deal more expeditiously and effectively with people who breach bail conditions. I hope that that package of measures—which includes tighter conditions on people who are able to receive bail, more proper application and enforcement of bail conditions and tougher sentences for those who breach those conditions—will ensure that we can restore confidence in the bail and remand system.

Does the First Minister agree that when reports on, for example, the effective likelihood of re-offending are presented to the courts, a system must be in place to ensure that they are accurate and that the courts take a more consistent approach to them, not only to make our communities safer but to ensure that people who are accused remain accused until they are proven guilty?

The presumption of innocence is a very important legal principle, but we must ensure that our system takes due account of public safety. Because the European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that we can do that, we have introduced a package of measures that will ensure that although our courts will, of course, base their decisions on individual cases on accurate evidence and analysis, they will do so more consistently and—in the eyes of the public, I hope—more robustly.

---

Anti-terrorism Plans

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with the Home Office regarding how its anti-terrorism plans will operate in Scotland. (S2F-1843)

Ministers and officials are in regular contact with the Home Office to ensure that Scotland's interests are fully covered by any terrorism legislation and policies.

I invite the First Minister to agree that an offence of glorifying terrorism, as proposed by the United Kingdom Government, is unnecessary and would be unworkable and impossible to police and prosecute effectively. Does he recognise that had such a law been in force in the 1980s, councillors across Scotland would have faced charges and possible prison sentences of up to five years for their decisions to acknowledge a man who was in prison for sabotage and for attempting violently to overthrow the Government of South Africa? Is he concerned that, under the proposed 20-year rule, a number of Labour politicians who decided to rename St George's Place Nelson Mandela Place 19 years ago might still be open to prosecution?

I certainly hope that that is not the case, given that I was one of those council leaders. One of my proudest days was the day that we named the Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum's main gallery after Nelson Mandela, for which I was joined by Sir Shridath Ramphal, the then secretary-general of the Commonwealth. He said that such individual decisions were ripples in a sea that would create a tidal wave that would sweep Nelson Mandela out of jail and South Africa to freedom and democracy. Although such actions may have appeared to be tokenistic to some people at the time, they were important gestures of solidarity that helped the international movement to end apartheid.

I hope that, following the consultation that the Home Office is leading and the decisions that it takes, any new laws will be framed carefully to ensure that people who make legitimate democratic points are not covered by them, but that those who incite hatred and terrorism are.

---

Drug Dealers (Convictions)

To ask the First Minister how many drug dealers were convicted in 2004. (S2F-1838)

The latest available statistics are for 2003, when there were 1,639 convictions for illegal supply or trafficking of drugs in Scotland.

Is the First Minister aware that senior police officers now suggest that several families in Scotland have built up cumulative assets in excess of £100 million and that the overall turnover of the drugs industry in Scotland is in the range of £3 billion to £5 billion? That suggests that between 3 and 5 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product is in the illegal drugs industry. Will he seek to retain for Scottish benefit all the moneys that are retrieved from drug dealing—which are currently capped at £17 million a year—rather than allowing them to be a tax on Scotland that is taken south?

Dear oh dear. I thought that "It's Scotland's oil" was a poor old slogan that the nationalists had dragged back from 30 years ago, but to start saying "It's Scotland's drugs" is going a bit too far.

The reality is that those of us who have to deal with such matters rather than simply come up with silly simplistic slogans and ideas are now catching drug dealers at a rate. I will give Mr Stevenson an example of that. In 2002, the number of crimes related to drug dealing that the police in Scotland recorded was 10,139. In 2003, that number had gone down to 8,807. In 2002, the number of convictions was 1,353, but in 2003 it had gone up to 1,639. I hope that he will agree that we are being effective in reducing the number of recorded instances of such crimes and that we are being highly effective in convicting those who are responsible for them.

One of the reasons for that is that we work in partnership with the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, our police forces and the many United Kingdom agencies—including HM Customs and Excise and the immigration authorities—that work closely with our drug enforcement agency. Those agencies have to be paid for from somewhere, so it is appropriate that we should share the proceeds and then join together to catch drug dealers. It is appropriate that, rather than getting involved in silly nationalist arguments about where the money is going or whose tax it is, we are effective at catching drug dealers in Scotland and getting drugs off Scotland's streets.

I wonder whether I could focus the First Minister's mind on the definition of "drug dealer". The figures that he gave in good faith mean very little. Many of the people who are convicted of dealing drugs are users, who are simply selling on drugs to feed their habits. Yesterday I chaired a conference on aspects of drugs policy. Many such aspects need to be considered afresh and we need new measurements of success—if we can classify it as that—and an assessment of which methods and policies have been failing. I speak as someone who was chairman of the Scottish Drugs Forum nearly 20 years ago and I can assure the First Minister that nothing has improved.

Unlike other party leaders, I welcome Margo MacDonald's right to express her opinion on such matters. However, in this case I do not agree with her. Since the establishment of the Parliament there has been the creation of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and the passage through the UK Parliament of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We have taken measures to work in partnership with other agencies to increase the number of convictions for drug dealing, and we have introduced drug treatment and testing orders in our courts.

We should ensure that we do not just tackle the people who are dealing, but that measures are put in place for addicts. Increased resources have been announced again this summer for drug rehabilitation across Scotland, which will help people to get off drugs, thereby reducing demand as well as supply. In all those different areas in Scotland today, far more is taking place far more effectively than was the case pre-devolution. Parliament has a good record so far, although it recognises that we still have a long way to go.