Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 29, 2003

Official Report 699KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you provide an assurance that the format for today's First Minister's question time does not set a precedent? Two political parties in this Parliament have each newly earned the right to question weekly the First Minister on the issues of the day. Today, that right has been denied to one of those parties. Can you give an assurance that the matter will be reviewed?

We have adopted a procedure that will see us through to the summer recess. I have set that out perfectly clearly. The Procedures Committee will consider the format for questions over the summer. I hope to have a longer form of First Minister's question time in place by the second week after the recess. The current procedure applies for five weeks.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-35)

We plan to meet again shortly. I am certain that we will discuss, among other issues, the best practice and the best ideas for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour north and south of the border.

In Parliament yesterday the First Minister expressed his pride at the significant impact that he had made on the European convention, which meets tomorrow to consider the new European constitution. Has he made any representations to the United Kingdom Government on provisions in that constitution that he would like to see vetoed?

Both Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister in Wales, and I spent a considerable amount of time before the elections discussing those matters with the UK Government. We made recommendations to the UK Government and were consulted on its approach. We are full members of the UK Cabinet's sub-committee that deals with those matters. Scotland and Wales therefore have a considerable direct input as well as input through members of Parliament, Cabinet ministers and other ministers in Whitehall. In addition to all that, we agreed with Peter Hain, then Minister of State for Europe in the UK Government, a paper that was submitted to the European convention to represent the views of the UK as a whole. It contained significant provisions that will take forward the influence of devolved Administrations, not only in Scotland and Wales but throughout the European Union. We await the results of that representation, but we certainly feel that although there are problems with some other European countries, which are extremely resistant to devolved Administrations being involved with the EU, we have made some headway.

I thank the First Minister for that long and thoughtful answer, but it does not quite get to the point that I asked about, which was whether there are any areas where he wants a veto to be exercised. I urge him to take up that issue.

Tomorrow, when the convention meets, it will consider a proposal to make fishing policy a matter for the EU's exclusive control. Does the First Minister's Government support that proposal? After the atrocious experience of the Scottish fishing industry in Europe, would not it be sensible to return those powers to this Parliament, rather than to give more powers away to the EU?

In the chamber we often hear Mr Swinney praising other parties for adopting SNP policies, so it is nice to hear the SNP adopting a Tory policy for a change. In this case, both parties are wrong.

This may surprise some members in the chamber, but fish can move from one set of coastal waters into another set of coastal waters. Fish can travel across the sea and therefore we need to have a common fisheries policy in Europe so that we have a common approach that tackles the maintenance of sustainable fishing stocks on an international basis, rather than on a pseudo-nationalist basis.

Sell- out.

Ms Cunningham would be wise to wait until the end of the answer.

Mr Swinney asked a specific question about the specific proposal for exclusive competence on the common fisheries policy. Not only have we made representations on that matter, but we have written to the UK Government and asked it to oppose the proposal. Not only has the UK Government made representations, but it has written to the EU to make it clear that it is also opposed to the proposal. Not only is this Administration opposed to it, but the UK Government is opposed to it. We will ensure that that view is put across.

I am glad that the First Minister thinks that the fishing industry is a laughing matter. [Interruption.] Labour members were laughing a moment ago; they will not be laughing when the fishing communities of Scotland have to face tough times because Labour and the Liberal Democrats sold out in the EU negotiations last December.

Can we have an absolute commitment from the First Minister not only that he will write letters and make telephone calls, but that the British Government will veto that proposal, which will be very damaging to the Scottish fishing industry?

We will not win arguments by vetoing proposals before the argument has even begun. The British Government is putting very persuasive arguments to the European Union to ensure that the convention suits our national interests, in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am happy to support the British Government on that.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-22)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will take forward our programme of legislation and proposals to implement our partnership agreement. I am sure that members will hear, in due course, what decisions we make.

I sincerely trust that, at its next meeting, the Cabinet will find the time to discuss the rising tide of serious crime in Scotland, exemplified by the statistics that came out the other day.

During the election campaign, the First Minister said that he was concerned about convicted drug dealers being released early from prison through automatic remission. I note, from the partnership agreement, that a sentencing commission is to be established. Does the First Minister acknowledge the fact that automatic remission was ended by the last Conservative Government, through the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997, and that that was repealed within a year by the incoming Labour Government? Accordingly, does the responsibility for letting drug dealers out of jail early not lie with the First Minister and his Labour colleagues?

Frankly, I am interested in solving problems rather than in making petty political points. I could make several points about the crime and justice record of the last Conservative Government, but that would not prevent one crime or one incident of antisocial behaviour, and it would not ensure that drug dealers and others serve proper sentences in our prisons and elsewhere. That is the objective that we have set ourselves. When our sentencing commission is established, it will ensure consistency of sentencing throughout Scotland and will, quite properly, review the current provisions for remand, bail and certain specific sentences. I hope that the commission will be brought into being very quickly and that its results will be supported by all members when we publish them at a later date.

I believe in honesty in sentencing, as do the public. Honesty in sentencing means that the sentence that is handed down by the court should be the sentence that is served. That is why Conservative members attempted on two occasions, during the debates on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill in February and March, to end automatic release. However, that idea was voted down by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party. If the First Minister has now converted, he is welcome to join our cause, albeit belatedly. Does he agree that four years should mean four years; that 10 years should mean 10 years; and that, in certain cases, life should mean life? If so, will he introduce legislation to that effect?

No, I do not agree. That would be an extremely stupid and irresponsible policy for any Administration to adopt. I believe strongly that people should be directed into a better standard of behaviour and away from criminality. That should be attempted whether they are given prison sentences or community sentences. The sentences should fit the crimes, but, while serving those sentences, people should be offered the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and to learn a better way of living. If they do not take up that opportunity, their sentences should mean what they say. That is why I am opposed to automatic remission at 50 per cent of sentences of less than four years. Nevertheless, the right way in which to revise that policy is through an independent sentencing commission that is judicially—not politically—led and that acts objectively, so that, I hope, all parties might support the outcome. We will thereby have better sentencing policy. Yes, we will have rehabilitation and sentences that fit the crimes, but we will also have a better criminal justice system as a whole.

Has the Cabinet discussed the rise in the number of attacks on firefighters and other emergency staff, who provide a valuable service in our communities? During the election campaign, the First Minister advised that he would legislate to protect our emergency staff. Can he update me on the position, as there was no reference to that issue in his statement yesterday?

The Cabinet discussed the matter on Wednesday and we decided—properly, I believe—that the antisocial behaviour bill would be the wrong place in which to legislate on crimes of violence or other forms of intimidation against emergency workers. However, we remain committed to legislating quickly on such matters and will consider the best way to do so. That might be done in a short bill or in consultation with a parliamentary committee. We will introduce proposals in due course.

Given the complaints that many of us have received about the standard of service that ScotRail delivers—indeed, the First Minister will recall that, when the Justice 2 Committee travelled to Inverness, the train's lavatory doors automatically locked themselves just north of Edinburgh—will the First Minister ensure that the Cabinet deliberates on suitable, high-class standards of service when it considers the new rail franchise agreement?

Such issues are certainly a central part of our attempts to improve, modernise and refresh the franchise agreement. I hope that on the occasion to which Mr Stone referred he did not urgently require the use of those particular facilities and that, if he did, he will have better success in the future.

---

Cabinet Sub-committee on Sustainable Scotland

To ask the First Minister when he will reconvene the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-21)

We will decide Cabinet sub-committees shortly. However, whatever arrangements we agree, environmental considerations will be at the heart of government, because we must deliver sustainable development for Scotland and secure environmental justice.

I thank the First Minister for those commitments. He will be aware of the WWF International report that was published this morning on the ecological disaster facing wild salmon, stocks of which have declined by 45 per cent since 1983. Given that the Executive's aquaculture strategy might not come into full effect—if it ever does so—until seven years after the Parliament first met, will the sub-committee discuss the salmon issue as a matter of urgency and ensure that the Executive is represented at the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation's conference in Edinburgh next week? Further, in order for failing sustainability policies such as the aquaculture policy to be audited properly, will the Executive consider giving that responsibility, as a matter of course, to the Parliament's Audit Committee?

Like Mr Finnie, I do not want to presume which parliamentary committee should consider which items. However, I would certainly be happy if the new environment and rural development committee or any other parliamentary committee wanted to scrutinise the implementation and progress of the aquaculture strategy. The department and, if necessary, any sub-committee that is established will certainly monitor the implementation of the strategy. It is important to acknowledge that the strategy is a recent one and that it was discussed at length not only with people in the aquaculture industry in Scotland, but with wild salmon fishery interests.

We must ensure that we have a strategy in place that deals with sustainability, given that the scientific evidence does not always appear to back up the perception that aquaculture development in Scotland has affected wild salmon fisheries. Therefore, the fact that there are conflicting arguments and that there is a lack of scientific evidence to back up the arguments one way or another means that we must ensure that our strategy involves the interests of both sides of the argument and of the Government. We must progress the strategy and ensure that, at the end of the day, we can rebuild wild salmon fisheries in Scotland.

You can have a single, supplementary question, Mr Harper.

I thank the First Minister for that reply. However, there has been a full investigation, so I ask again how the Executive will audit its sustainability strategies.

We will do so by several means, not least of which will be through our strategic environmental assessments. However, we will also audit the strategies through the work that we will do in the sustainability sub-committee or whatever equivalent replaces it, given that we need to reassess constantly the best way to ensure that sustainable development and environmental justice are at the heart of the Government's polices. That is exactly what we will do.

---

Antisocial Behaviour

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive will introduce measures to tackle antisocial behaviour. (S2F-30)

We will be publishing before the summer recess draft proposals for an antisocial behaviour bill, which we intend to introduce to Parliament in the autumn.

I thank the First Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the majority of people, not only in East Renfrewshire but throughout Scotland, know that we are on their side when it comes to tackling serious crime through record police numbers, the Drug Enforcement Agency and new powers to tackle sexual offences? Does he also agree that the seeming freedom and impunity with which some families are able to disturb and even terrorise neighbours gives us cause for concern? Will he reassure the chamber that we will tackle antisocial behaviour now—before the much-needed legislation to which he referred is enacted—to let people know that we are on their side in that area, too?

The answer to the final part of Ken Macintosh's question is, of course, yes. We need new laws and will introduce the antisocial behaviour bill in due course, but there needs to be action right now—not just by national Government, but by local government and other agencies. This morning I discussed that matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, which is as committed as we are to tackling with urgency the issue of antisocial behaviour. ACPOS needs new laws to back it up, but it must also ensure that there is high police visibility on the streets and that people understand that they will be tackled when they commit antisocial acts.

That applies not just to adults and older teenagers who are involved in antisocial behaviour, but to very young children. In the past fortnight, I have come across seven, eight and nine-year-olds who are involved in putting fireworks through the letterboxes of old-age pensioners and in similar activities. They and their parents need to be held accountable for what they have done. We do not need to wait for new legislation to do that—the police and local authorities can act now.

---

Nursery Nurses

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive is taking to ensure that there is a national review of nursery nurses' pay and conditions. (S2F-29)

We recognise the important contribution that is made by all early-years and child care workers. It is extremely regrettable that industrial action is now being taken by nursery nurses across Scotland.

A review of nursery nurses' pay and conditions is being undertaken by local authorities. I encourage both the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, representing local authority employers, and Unison, representing the nursery nurses, to work together to complete the review as quickly as possible.

Does the First Minister accept that the role of the nursery nurse has expanded because of Executive priorities for the pre-fives? Does he accept that he has a duty to ensure that the people responsible for delivering those priorities should be rewarded adequately for their skill and expertise? Does the First Minister think that an average wage of £13,000 is a fair wage, or does he want pre-five education and child care on the cheap?

I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of nursery nurses in Scotland—if not all of them—do an excellent job. They certainly do an extremely important job, not just in their workplace but as part of our national strategy to improve children's services, child care and nurseries.

However, the responsibility for nurseries lies with our local authorities. It is vitally important that they accept that responsibility and manage nurseries well. I am sure that nursery nurses feel that they have a very strong case. Local authorities have a duty to manage their financial responsibilities. They must get together to resolve this dispute, to ensure both that nursery nurses receive a decent rate for the job and that authorities have the right pattern of expenditure across all their responsibilities.

On the subject of conditions of service for nursery nurses, what consideration—if any—is the on-going review of initial teacher education giving to the development of a framework for part-time and distance learning teaching qualifications that will be accessible not only to graduates but to those with relevant experience, such as nursery nurses?

I am not aware of the specific provisions of the review to which the member refers, but I am very conscious of the need for us to ensure that a variety of routes are available to those who want to go into the educational profession. When I was Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, I was strongly of the view that it should be possible for people to train to be secondary teachers if they did not have exactly the degree sought by the teacher training institution but had relevant experience in industry, finance or elsewhere that would help them to be a good teacher in the classroom. I imagine that similar considerations may apply in relation to nursery education. However, I do not want to pre-empt the results of the study that Elaine Smith mentioned without knowing all the facts.

The nursery nurses have been pursuing their regrading claim for nearly two years, are clearly in dispute with the local authorities and have been forced to take industrial action. I congratulate them on the solidarity that they have displayed. A word from the First Minister acknowledging that their claim is just and encouraging COSLA to pay up would settle the dispute very quickly. Is he prepared to do that?

Members who have been in the chamber when I have been asked similar questions at First Minister's question time in the past will know that I do not believe that we should become involved directly in unresolved industrial disputes between employers and employees. However, it is important that we state that the dispute should be progressed quickly. It has taken far too long—I am not sure on which side the fault lies for that. Both the employers and the nursery nurses should talk—quickly—to ensure not only that the nursery nurses are paid the rate for the job but that the nurseries and children of Scotland have the facilities and services that they require.