Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 4, 2006

Official Report 748KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

I welcome Richard Lochhead back to Parliament.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2264)

I also congratulate Richard Lochhead. When I next see the Prime Minister, I might ask him whether he watched at the weekend as Scotland's latest world champion, Graeme Dott, won the world snooker championship. If I was speaking to the Prime Minister today, I might well advise him that the qualities of patience, determination and good tactical judgment that were deployed by Graeme Dott at the weekend could come in handy during the next few days.

I take it from that comment that the First Minister thinks that the Prime Minister currently does not possess those qualities; most of the population would agree.

I begin by congratulating Grampian police on the prompt arrest yesterday of one of the serious criminals who were wrongly released by the Home Office. I remind the First Minister that, in a letter to my colleague Pete Wishart on Friday, Charles Clarke said of the 79 more serious offenders:

"I can confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, only one is recorded as residing in Scotland."

Given that Charles Clarke admitted yesterday that 38 of the 79 serious offenders are unaccounted for and that he has no idea where they are, will the First Minister agree with me that Charles Clarke's letter is seriously misleading and just one more reason why he should be kicked out of office? What action is being taken by the Scottish authorities to find out whether any more of those most serious offenders are living here in Scotland?

I do not have that letter with me, so it would be wrong of me to comment on it. However, Ms Sturgeon quoted it as saying

"to the best of my knowledge,"

which seems to me to be an appropriate qualification in the circumstances. Clearly, the Home Office does not know where all the people are who are on the register of 79 people who were the top priority for the Home Office to track down, identify and make decisions on following last week's announcements and who are still missing. As I said last week, Scottish police forces stand ready to assist the Home Office in the identification of anyone it is looking for, and the Scottish Prison Service has consistently done that. Grampian police speedily and effectively identified one individual, found out where they were and now have them in custody. That is a tribute to the work of Grampian police. We will take exactly the same action should the Home Office identify anyone else.

I point out to the First Minister that the letter—I am perfectly happy for him to have a copy of it—does not say that 38 of those prisoners are unaccounted for. Charles Clarke must have known that on Friday when he wrote the letter. That is misleading and unacceptable.

I remind the First Minister that last week he expressed anger and disappointment at the lack of clarification from the Home Office about the Scottish implications of this fiasco. Seven days later, is the First Minister in a position to give answers to some very basic questions? Were any prisoners wrongly released from Scottish prisons and, if so, how many? Of the total 1,023 prisoners who were wrongly released, how many are thought to be living in Scotland? Those are basic questions for public safety. The First Minister could not answer those questions last week; can he do so now?

Such details in respect of Scottish prisons and former Scottish prisoners have been provided by the Minister for Justice in an answer to a parliamentary question that has been made available to members today. I understand that, because of the time lag between the lodging and the publication of answers, the answer may not yet be in the public domain, but it will be available for members to scrutinise before question time this afternoon.

It is important to recognise that the Home Office has identified that, from its list of the 1,023 people who were released from prisons elsewhere, only one individual is in Scotland. That individual has been identified and is in custody, but I cannot comment on that specific case because of other charges that are outstanding.

As regards individuals who are or were in Scottish jails, those who are foreign nationals—I understand that most of them are from within the European Union and about half are from the Republic of Ireland—have all been identified. Those foreign nationals whom the immigration and nationality directorate requested be taken into its custody for deportation or for consideration of a deportation decision have all been identified. Of the 188 such former prisoners who were identified as having been released last year, 26 were in that category and all 26 were transferred into the custody of the IND.

It is possible—I must be careful, as I have no doubt that this will come back to me if I am not—that, on top of that 26, the IND should have asked us about others but did not do so. As yet, we have no information to suggest that that is the case and the IND is not aware of any individuals released from Scottish prisons who should have been transferred into the custody of the IND and who would have been so transferred if the IND had identified them to us.

I thank the First Minister for giving us some further information today, but does he agree that, one week after the problem came to light publicly and 10 months after it first became known to the Home Office, it beggars belief that we do not yet have a full picture of the Scottish implications? Is it not clear that the Home Secretary has completely lost his grip?

Yesterday, in a vain attempt to reassert some authority, the Home Secretary proposed a package of reforms to tighten up the rules on deportation. Is the First Minister aware that a central proposal in the reforms is that the Sentencing Guidelines Council in England should set down clear criteria according to which judges will be required to make deportation recommendations when sentencing? As the First Minister will be aware, the Sentencing Guidelines Council's writ does not run in Scotland. Does he intend to introduce similar guidelines for judges in Scottish courts?

The appropriate thing would be to ensure that advice and guidance are produced that are relevant to the Scottish legal system. That is precisely what we will do and that is why we are in discussions with the Home Office about the best way to achieve that.

I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's statement yesterday. Although I may not have said this in the chamber last Thursday, one question that I was asking behind the scenes last Thursday was why such individuals are not deported immediately. A presumption in favour of deportation seems to me to be entirely the right response to the situation. However, we need to ensure that any such response that operates in Scotland can do so within the confines of the Scottish legal system. Both the Justice Department and the Crown Office will discuss the matter further with the Home Office so that we can clarify to MSPs how we plan to take the issue forward within the overall framework that the Home Secretary set out.

I thank the First Minister for that assurance, but I certainly hope that any proposals for change will be driven by this Parliament rather than by an incompetent Home Secretary.

Does the First Minister agree that the essential issue for the public at present is that 38 serious offenders who should have been deported are currently loose on our streets and no one has any idea where they are? Does he agree that that is a matter of serious public concern? Will he give a guarantee that the Scottish authorities are proactively doing everything possible to ensure that any such offenders who are in Scotland are apprehended as quickly as possible?

When Ms Sturgeon asked me that question the first time, I resisted the temptation to point out that it is difficult for Scottish police forces to find people when they do not know their names or the addresses where they might be. Ms Sturgeon suggests that in some way we should be able to identify the 38 people when we do not even know whether they are living in Scotland. That is not a sensible proposal at this stage.

When someone is identified as being in Scotland or as likely to be in Scotland, Scottish police forces need to ensure that the person is identified and put into custody. That is precisely what happened in the case in Grampian and what would happen elsewhere in Scotland. Scottish police forces are co-operating with the Home Office in identifying those individuals and any relationship that they may have with Scotland. They are doing so precisely because of the need to ensure that, if that possibility exists, they are able to assist in every way possible. I gave that assurance in the chamber last Thursday.

Scottish police forces and the Scottish Prison Service have, to the best of everybody's knowledge, behaved in an exemplary fashion in this matter. I expressed my anger and disappointment last Thursday at the overall situation. I believe that the whole country shares that anger and disappointment. I hope that the measures that the Home Secretary announced last week and this week make a difference to tackling the issue. Our forces stand ready to assist him in achieving that objective.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2265)

The next Cabinet meeting will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

In light of the revelations this week that Scottish Enterprise has a total funding gap of £60 million, which is higher than was previously estimated, will the First Minister say whether he was aware that that was the true figure? Will he also say exactly how much of the shortfall the Executive is prepared to meet?

The figure is not higher than anything that was previously estimated. It is quite clear that if a company has a deficit in one year, that could carry on into another year. The deficit in the first year is about £30 million; if one multiplies that by two, one gets £60 million. That seems fairly obvious to me.

Miss Goldie regularly comes to the chamber trying to undermine Scottish Enterprise and the strategy that we are following, yet it is delivering jobs for and investment in Scotland—indeed, it has done so yet again this week, with Invitrogen's decision to relocate its European headquarters to Inchinnan in Renfrewshire. Instead of highlighting Scottish Enterprise's successes, perhaps Miss Goldie wants to undermine its efforts by continually coming to the chamber and exaggerating the problem. I prefer to highlight successes in Scotland and I will continue to do so.

I think that there are many who would hope that Scottish Enterprise had the same primitive grasp of arithmetic that the First Minister has. The public will be little short of aghast at the level of financial mismanagement in an agency that is charged with improving Scotland's economic performance. Deficits are deficits and continuing deficits are a looming disaster. The public will be equally aghast at the laid-back approach of the Executive. Will the First Minister give a commitment to do what he refused to do the last time that I raised the issue? Will he tell Scottish Enterprise in no uncertain terms that there will be no more blank cheques to bail it out and that it is time for it to put its financial house in order?

As the Deputy First Minister said the other day, it would be utterly irresponsible of ministers not to look seriously at Scottish Enterprise's budget. We need to ensure that the important projects and funds that are making a difference to Scotland continue to be funded. If that requires Scottish Enterprise to be given additional access to its reserves, we are prepared to consider that. We will agree a budget with Scottish Enterprise—we hope to do that next week, before its board meeting on 12 May—and we will continue to take the importance of its work into account.

Miss Goldie represents the West of Scotland region. She will therefore have an interest in the views of Rolls-Royce, whose company secretary and director of government relations, Charles Blundell, said recently that Rolls-Royce was committed not just to its present operations in Scotland but to identifying further opportunities for investment thanks to the support of Scottish Enterprise and programmes such as R and D plus, which is not available south of the border. Those are the very programmes that the Tories would cut to make the savings that it is looking for in Scottish Enterprise. I hope that Miss Goldie will be as honest when she goes to the electorate next May as she is in raising these issues in the chamber. I hope that she tells the voters in her West of Scotland region that she wants companies such as Rolls-Royce to go home.

My party has never wanted to impair Scottish Enterprise in the fundamental and essential exercise of its core operations. I return to the issue that I have raised with the First Minister on previous occasions. Instead of flinging £60 million at a failing organisation, surely it is better for the First Minister to acknowledge the need for reform of the structure of Scottish Enterprise. If the First Minister will not listen to me, will he listen to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities? COSLA said:

"We believe that local authority led partnerships could take on local economic development, Business Gateway and regeneration and skills".

Will the First Minister consider that option?

People throughout Scotland will be "aghast"—I use Miss Goldie's word—to learn that the Tories might support taking powers from Scottish Enterprise and giving them to local authorities, given that the Tories did the opposite when they had a chance to do something in government.

Miss Goldie said that the Tories have never proposed to cut such budgets in Scottish Enterprise, but I remind her that the Conservative manifesto said:

"We will retain Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, but reduce their budgets and focus their energies on delivering advice and training services to all businesses in Scotland."

Therefore the Conservatives would not retain the R and D plus scheme, which delivered investment in Scotland by Rolls-Royce, or the many other schemes that I am sure during the next few weeks Murdo Fraser and other members of the Enterprise and Culture Committee will say are important for Scotland and should not be affected by Scottish Enterprise's current difficulties.

The Conservatives should be more consistent. If their policy is to cut the budget, they should defend that policy in the Parliament. Let us have a proper debate about the successes of Scottish Enterprise, as against the policies of the Tories and the nationalists. We are happy to have that debate any time; let us get on with it.

---

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-2266)

I have no formal meeting planned with the Secretary of State, but I look forward to discussing matters with him again soon.

The Scottish Greens today called on all parties to state their positions on nuclear power. Can the First Minister confirm that the Executive intends to continue to dodge the issue of new nuclear power until after next year's Holyrood elections?

That was a challenging question.

The Executive's position on nuclear power has been consistent and it is right that we adopt that position. As I said in the Parliament about two weeks ago, first, there is a need for a long-term energy policy throughout the United Kingdom and in Scotland. Such a policy must address the fact that currently we get energy from different sources and anyone who proposes to reduce or abandon a source must offer a viable and sustainable alternative. Secondly, we are not prepared to agree or approve the next generation of nuclear power stations or any proposal to base a new nuclear power station in Scotland until the issue of nuclear waste is resolved.

With the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations, we set up an expert committee to consider the matter. The committee produced a report for consultation last Thursday and people should contribute to the consultation and the debate. At the end of the consultation process, we will receive a final report and consider a way forward in the context of that report, UK energy policy and our Scottish energy study.

I once asked the First Minister how he interprets "resolved", but we are still no nearer to a clear understanding of his position.

Perhaps the First Minister will be more forthright in response to my next question. Does he agree that nuclear power brings with it other, serious problems, such as the risk of nuclear accident, increased pollution from radioactivity, an inability to help with climate change and massive cost to the taxpayer? Does he think that those serious issues also remain unresolved?

I do not accept Shiona Baird's slightly loaded wording, but I agree that the issues that she identifies require proper and thorough debate as we participate in the development of a UK energy policy, set out our priorities in Scotland and ensure that our funding mechanisms and policies support those priorities. Of course there are issues not just to do with nuclear waste but to do with the impact of nuclear power on our climate and our national budgets. Other factors must be taken into account in the debate.

I make this point genuinely and I hope that all the parties will take it on board. If we are to address the issues around nuclear power that Shiona Baird mentioned, we must also address how we replace the contribution of more than a third that nuclear power currently makes to the generation of electricity in Scotland.

---

Marching Season

To ask the First Minister what steps are being considered to ensure that this year's marching season does not disrupt communities. (S2F-2271)

The Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which we hope the Parliament will pass later this month, will give local authorities new powers to consider the likely impact of any march in relation to public safety, public order, damage to property and disruption to the life of the community. As part of our long-term commitment to joint working to minimise disruption to communities, the Minister for Justice joined march organisers, the police and local authorities on Tuesday to sign an historic statement pledging to work in partnership to weed out the troublemakers who disrupt otherwise peaceful marches and parades. Despite my commitment to the issue and my work on it over the years, I always doubted that we could have a joint statement of that sort, with those individuals and organisations standing shoulder to shoulder to say that they want to move Scotland forward. I am proud that they and Cathy Jamieson have achieved that objective and I hope that we will all help them to implement the pledge in the months ahead.

I add my congratulations to all those who committed their organisations to pursuing their democratic rights with as little disruption as possible to our communities. Does the First Minister share the concern of representatives of the Irish community in Scotland that too much emphasis is put on the negative aspects of religious and cultural diversity in Scotland? Does he agree that the Scottish Executive must do more to promote the positive aspects of Irish culture, including that of Ulster Scots, in Scotland? Is it not part of Scotland's secret shame that the Scottish Executive does not sufficiently acknowledge and support organisations such as the Irish Diaspora in Scotland Association, which represents the biggest ethnic minority in Scotland?

As I have tried to make clear in the past, I believe that, in tackling the extremes of sectarian behaviour in Scotland, we must accept that we have traditions in Scotland—some have been Scottish for hundreds of years and others have come to Scotland from other lands—that are important to the communities in which they are strong. I support the right of individuals and groups to celebrate their traditions, but I absolutely oppose that celebration when it turns to hatred of another historical tradition or religion. I understand absolutely Michael McMahon's approach. It is important that we acknowledge the traditions of other communities and that we encourage others not just to tolerate those traditions, but to show an interest in them. However, at the same time, we must clamp down on those who distort the traditions and who plague marches, education, sporting events and community lives with their extreme behaviour and hatred, which has turned so sour on so many occasions.

I join others in congratulating those who were involved in this week's announcement. Will the First Minister assure us that all the organisations that are involved will be kept in touch with and involved in future consultations and the working up of policy? Only four weeks ago, I was informed by representatives at the top of the Orange order of their concern that, at that time, they had not been involved in the discussions that arose from the big meeting that was held in Glasgow some time ago. Obviously, the situation has been put right a bit in the past month, but can we be assured that all the groups will continue to be involved and consulted?

I assure members, particularly Donald Gorrie, given his record on the issue, that we have involved all the organisations that took part in last year's summit and that we will continue to involve them in the implementation of the summit's recommendations and the action plan that was announced in, I think, February. We are determined not only to deal with the extreme behaviour at marches and parades but to ensure that, within our education system, youngsters grow up understanding other traditions and playing and learning together in many ways, despite the arrangements of our school system. We are also determined to ensure that the new powers in our legal system are used effectively by the courts and the police and that, in our sporting grounds and clubs, where progress has been made, further action is taken, supported by us and the authorities.

---

Radioactive Waste

To ask the First Minister what the timetable is for taking decisions on the management of radioactive waste in Scotland, in light of the interim report from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. (S2F-2277)

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will present its final recommendations to ministers on 31 July 2006. We will then need to consider carefully the committee's final report.

The draft recommendations say that once CORWM has made its final recommendations, those should be acted on urgently. Is the Scottish Executive undertaking preparatory work on how we might proceed with respect to those recommendations? CORWM has also asked for a commitment to an intensified programme of research and development. Is the Executive working to ensure that Scottish institutions will be involved in that programme?

We would obviously want to work with the grain of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's initial recommendations as they are out for consultation, but we are not, to my knowledge, currently involved in any preparatory work. We would encourage Scottish academics to be closely involved and interested in this whole developing area, which is of such importance to the future of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

---

Scottish Enterprise (Budget)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has now agreed a revised budget for Scottish Enterprise for this financial year. (S2F-2269)

We expect to agree a revised budget for Scottish Enterprise shortly.

I remind the First Minister that the last time I asked him about the issue, on 19 January, he told me that he expected Scottish Enterprise to finish the year within its allocated budget. Five days later, Scottish Enterprise advised him that it had an estimated overspend of £77 million, which has turned out to be £60 million. Can he confirm that, to assist Scottish Enterprise in filling that black hole, the Executive will have to reallocate resources from other budgets within the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department? Can he guarantee that essential services that are provided by our colleges and universities and by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland will not be adversely affected by that reallocation of resources for bailing out Scottish Enterprise?

On the last point, clearly we would not want any important programmes to be affected by decisions of a financial nature relating to Scottish Enterprise. We will have to wait until the further discussions that I have mentioned take place next week before we can be precise about the individual funding, although there is an issue to do with access to the reserves of Scottish Enterprise. I do not think that those who benefit from the funding programmes to which Alex Neil refers should worry in any way about being affected by the decisions that are taken.

On Alex Neil's first point, I remind him that he said on 21 March that the Scottish Enterprise chief executive and chair should be given three months to stabilise the organisation and that, if they failed, they should be sacked. Ten days later, on 31 March if I am right, he said that they should be sacked there and then. To take three months down to 10 days seems remarkable even by Alex Neil's standards.

I believe that we need sensible judgments on the financing of Scottish Enterprise. We need to assess the position, to ensure that Scottish Enterprise has any additional resource allocation that is required to preserve key funding streams and projects and to have stability in the organisation so that it can build on its recent successes. We do not need a witch hunt, as is being conducted by the convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee.

If the Scottish Executive can conjure up £60 million out of thin air at the drop of a hat to bail out Scottish Enterprise, can the First Minister give us an assurance that, the next time that we in this party ask for additional money for vital road upgrades or to save threatened hospitals, for example, we will not be accused of making rash spending commitments and we will not be told that there is no money to spare?

Nobody is going to bail out Scottish Enterprise. The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has ensured that proper external auditors have produced a report on the financial management of Scottish Enterprise; that that report's recommendations will be implemented; and that any additional resources that are needed are properly calculated and will have a minimal impact on the rest of the Executive's budget. There is a clear objective that does not involve simply giving the organisation more money or bailing it out, as we could have done a month ago. That will not happen. Decisions will be made properly.

I absolutely assure Murdo Fraser that the next time he calls for additional Executive spending, I will not make the points that he has suggested that I will make. However, I will make the point that the Conservatives remain committed to cutting public sector budgets in Scotland, so any claims that they make about wanting increased spending on anything should fall on deaf ears in Scotland.

I am sure that the First Minister appreciates that concerns have arisen in the budget process about Scottish Enterprise's failure properly to implement resource accounting and about the smokescreen that resource accounting is a new process. He will appreciate that the process has been used for three years.

I acknowledge the points that members have made, but I believe that, despite what has happened in the past year, further funds must be made available to Scottish Enterprise to ensure that those in the front line who serve our communities and grow Scotland's economy do not suffer as a result of decisions that have been taken. Will the First Minister assure me that grass-roots projects in my constituency will not suffer as a result of the incompetence of Scottish Enterprise's management?

I assure Karen Gillon that the issues that she has raised are precisely the issues that we are considering in order to agree a final budget for Scottish Enterprise for next year. We want to ensure that any additional resource that might be required is spent on areas that members are concerned about and that the allocation is managed in the accounting way that we expect.

For the record, I do not accept the accusation that has been made about Scottish Enterprise's incompetence or lack of success. I simply refer again to Invitrogen's decision earlier this week to locate its European headquarters in Renfrewshire, which is a major boost for the life sciences sector in Scotland. Because of the national enterprise agency, a unique deal has been reached involving Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, four Scottish universities, our health service and £50 million of investment, which will put Scotland ahead of the rest of the world in relation to translational medicine; and we have the R and D plus scheme that was mentioned by Rolls-Royce, in which 11 projects that were awarded £15 million have generated £120 million of new research and development spend in Scotland. That is the direction that we have set Scottish Enterprise on. We have asked it to carry out tasks and a strategy on behalf of the devolved Government, which it is doing. It needs to continue to do so. The financial decisions that we take will be against that background.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—