First Minister's Question Time
Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-446)
Later today I will be having meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. I am sure that the whole Parliament would like to congratulate Mr George Burley on his likely ascent to leadership of our national team.
I associate myself with that sentiment.
This morning, Scots were shocked to hear of the rape of a schoolgirl by Robert Foye while he was on the run from Castle Huntly open prison. What reassurance will the First Minister offer that that will not happen again?
I thank Wendy Alexander for raising this very serious case, which, as she said quite rightly, will shock the whole nation. We should start by praising the courage of the victim of the attack in helping to secure the apprehension and conviction of Robert Foye.
The system of open prisons has been part of the Scottish prison system since 1954. I emphasise that, as members will understand, this was not a case of early release but of someone absconding from an open prison. The most recent figures show that there were 75 cases of prisoners absconding from an open prison in 2006-07, and there have been 65 in the year to date. That is a small percentage of the total number who go through the open prison system, but it is still 75 too many. However, absconding is an ever-present risk within an open prison system.
The assessment system that is employed is designed to put public safety uppermost. Nevertheless, because of concerns about prisons and sentencing in general—and, indeed, about Castle Huntly—on 20 September this Government announced the establishment of a Scottish Prisons Commission, led by Henry McLeish, to consider the purpose and impact of imprisonment in contemporary Scotland. The commission will also analyse the impact on courts, prisons and community justice services of the early-release provisions in the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007.
I should emphasise that in this case, the individual had no history of sexual violence. However, the case focuses attention on an issue that we as a Parliament need to address and which we as a Government will address.
When did ministers first hear about the case and what action did they take at that time?
Ministers were notified that the case was going through the court system several weeks ago. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice looked at it in the context of the McLeish commission. Clearly, the Scottish Prison Service puts the safety and integrity of the system uppermost at all times.
As the former Minister for Justice will remember, there have been concerns about Castle Huntly for some time and about a number of aspects of the prison system in relation to prisoners absconding and early release. The advantage of pursuing the matter in the way that the Government is pursuing it is that it allows us to consider all those concerns. I hope that, as a Parliament and as a Government, we will be able to make good the long-standing deficiencies in the Scottish justice system.
Robert Foye was five years into a 10-year sentence for attempting to murder a police officer. I was told this morning that when he absconded he was on only his second ever visit out of prison. Such a man should not have been allowed out on his own. Does the First Minister agree?
I clearly think that this case illustrates deficiencies in the system that should be addressed. I think that Wendy Alexander will agree that the right way to address those deficiencies is through the approach that the Government is taking. It would not be right for individual ministers to try to administer the system; rather, they should put in place measures that ensure that the system of justice in Scotland works more effectively in relation to these matters and public concern than it has in the past. Given the nature and seriousness of the case, I am quite deliberately couching my answers in a way that I hope will allow the whole Parliament to address a matter of substantial public concern.
It will be obvious to Wendy Alexander and her colleagues that the issues that she raises are not new issues in the Prison Service but have been with us for some time—for example, over the past eight years.
The First Minister said that there are deficiencies in the system. That is, of course, why Labour ended the automatic early release of prisoners from our jails. On 13 August, one week before this horrible rape, the Scottish National Party Government put those proposals on hold. The First Minister was warned. Margaret Curran told the Cabinet Secretary for Justice that he was trying to cut Scotland's prison population, regardless of the danger to the public. Because Labour's plans have been put on hold, Scotland's Prison Service will not be able to hold in prison those people whom it deems too dangerous to be on our streets.
Did the First Minister support the decision made by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 13 August, and does he now regret it?
Perhaps Wendy Alexander should have listened to my answer to her first question on the matter. This very serious case is not about early release but about a prisoner absconding from an open prison. If we are to deal with this very serious matter and address the problem, it is important to understand that important distinction.
We support the ending of automatic early release. That is why we are putting in place the measures to allow that to happen. I remind Wendy Alexander that, during the life of this Government, we have already committed an extra £120 million of capital investment to refurbish the prison system in Scotland and made the decision on a jail in the north-east of Scotland that was delayed by the previous Administration for many years. We have also established the Scottish Prisons Commission under a former First Minister so that the position and the deficiencies can be addressed coherently.
I could point out, if I so wished, the complaints that were made to the previous Minister for Justice about Castle Huntly—particularly by a former HM chief inspector of prisons—and ask a series of questions about what plans were implemented. However, if Wendy Alexander is going to come to the chamber and talk about justice issues, I think that, as a starter for 10, she should understand the difference between prisoners absconding from the prison system and the early release of serious offenders.
I call the constituency member, Cathie Craigie.
I know that the Parliament recognises the bravery of the young woman and wishes her well in trying to recover from this appalling experience. [Applause.]
My constituents want to know why this monster was allowed out of jail and why he was in an open prison in the first place when he had attempted to murder a police officer. Will the First Minister initiate an urgent review to tighten up who is allowed into open prisons and who is allowed out on day release? This monster might not have been out on early release, but he was allowed out on day release and he was allowed to violate one of my young constituents.
The Parliament has indicated that it shares the constituency member's concern for her young constituent and has saluted the bravery of that individual in helping to secure the apprehension and conviction of Robert Foye.
I repeat that the system of open prisons has been part of the prison service since 1954. I do not think that anyone argues that we should not have open prisons as part of our system. The system for determining who qualifies for the open prison system was put in place by the Government that the member supported over the past eight years.
The correct way to address the situation—which, I hope, will carry the whole Parliament with us—is exactly the way that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has chosen: by establishing the McLeish commission; by looking at the issues in the round; by addressing public concerns properly; by administrating the Parliament's decision to end automatic early release; and by seeing how our prison system can operate safely and securely in the future. We will not address the situation if members have collective amnesia about the past eight years; we will address it by looking forward, as the McLeish commission will do, and by making our prison system work better in the future than it has in the past.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-447)
I expect to meet the Prime Minister at the British-Irish Council summit in Dublin in the near future.
I, too, want to question the First Minister on the appalling case to which Ms Alexander and Mrs Craigie have already referred, and I want first to say that the horror, disgust and revulsion that all members feel is nothing compared with the pain, anguish and trauma of the young woman and her family.
I have listened to the First Minister say that the all-embracing, longer-term Prisons Commission is the appropriate way to deal with the situation. I could not disagree more. In October last year, my colleague Bill Aitken called for a review of Castle Huntly prison to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that prisoners sent there are fit to be there. The First Minister must accept that that review—not the more extensive one that is being contemplated—is now overdue and must be implemented immediately. What will he do?
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice will be glad to look at Castle Huntly specifically, as well as referring the issues to the McLeish commission, which I believe is the proper way to tackle them. If Annabel Goldie looks at the Official Report of previous debates, she will see that the justice secretary has referred specifically to Castle Huntly in answer to questions from a number of members, not least Murdo Fraser, who is sitting beside her now. Therefore, the justice secretary can and will take those actions.
If we are to carry the Parliament and the public of Scotland with us, a good way to proceed is through the McLeish commission, which will consider the variety of prison-related issues in the context of public safety and sensitivity, I know that Annabel Goldie will want to recognise the early decision made by the SNP Government to refurbish the prison estate in Scotland, which will cover new build and address in particular the long-standing lack of a decision on a prison for serious sex offenders in north-east Scotland. I am sure that she will also want to welcome the administration of the end of automatic early release, which is a particularly important issue to manage in the prison system in relation to public safety, to which we all owe a grave responsibility.
I am more concerned by the people who are not in the prisons—wherever and however well refurbished they are—because they have fled from them. The immediate horror presented by the appalling case that has been mentioned is sadly just the latest incident in a spiralling pattern of prison escapes.
We know three things. First, from a written answer received today, we know that everyone in our open prisons is serving 12 months or more—that is, they are higher-risk prisoners. Secondly, Scottish Prison Service figures reveal that nearly half of those who walked out of our open prisons had a violent background. Thirdly, we know that, in the past five years, the number of prisoners escaping from Castle Huntly alone has nearly trebled. That cannot go on.
Will the First Minister tell me two things: how many escaped prisoners are still on the run, roaming the streets of Scotland; and does he accept that underpinning any review must be the unbreakable principle that those who pose a danger to society never deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Uppermost in the consideration of decisions in the Prison Service on early release or prisoners going to open prison is the safety of the public. The evaluation systems are not foolproof, but that is the basis on which decisions are taken.
I have already said that 75 prisoners absconding from Castle Huntly is 75 too many, even though that is a small percentage of the number who go through the system. The figure for the year thus far is 65, which is 65 too many. That is a serious situation that needs to be addressed, but the figures do not point to a spiralling escalation in the number absconding from Castle Huntly. The situation is serious—75 is too many—but the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will be delighted to look at the matter.
To restore confidence in the Scottish judicial system, the measures that we have already taken include the setting up of the McLeish commission—which will do excellent work—which should carry the agreement of the whole Parliament. Those measures will fulfil our obligation to the people of Scotland to ensure that, once again, they have a justice system of which they can be proud.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of his Cabinet. (S3F-448)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
This week, families across Scotland have witnessed turmoil in the world economy. Millions of people have seen the value of their pension funds drop. Gas bills are going up by nearly 20 per cent. Fuel now costs more than £5 a gallon. Last January, Scotland's growth rate was 2.3 per cent; this year, it is 2.1 per cent. What does the First Minister expect growth to be next year?
The Scottish economy will not be insulated from developments in the world economy, but that does not mean that we should sit back and do nothing to improve the competitive position of our economy. The Government is doing exactly that in a range of ways, but one way of improving the competitive position of small businesses in Scotland is to proceed with a dramatic reduction in their fixed costs to allow them a better opportunity to flourish and to allow more people to start up small businesses. I would have thought that that should have been agreed across all parties in the chamber as an important thing to do, so why on earth did the Liberal Democrats not find it within themselves to vote in favour of it in yesterday's budget debate?
Surely the First Minister has a growth number of his own. Last year, Jim Mather was very specific when he told Parliament:
"The budget process is a sham … the minister has no target for growth."—[Official Report, 14 February 2007; c 32042.]
Now, Jim Mather is the minister and he does not have a growth figure.
In opposition, the SNP was so clear. Its economic plan proposed a 4 per cent annual growth target as a golden rule and it promised that we would be part of the arc of prosperity. However, now that the people of Scotland have real concerns about the economy, the First Minister does not have a credible strategy to protect their jobs and livelihoods. He has cut investment on enterprise, skills and universities. Why is it that he does not have a target and does not have a clue? He promised to increase growth. What will Scotland's growth rate be next year?
That question shows all the disadvantages of reading out a pre-prepared question as opposed to listening to the first answer. As I pointed out, if Nicol Stephen's party had been prepared to support measures to improve the competitive position of Scottish business, he would have the right to articulate to the Parliament his disagreement about our economic strategy.
The figures are contained in the document "The Government Economic Strategy", which states that we intend
"to raise Scotland's GDP growth rate to the UK level by 2011."
That is important because for the past 25 years we have not managed to achieve that rate over any sustained period of time. During the eight years in which the Liberal Democrats propped up the Labour Administration in Scotland, that growth gap widened and we had consistent failing and underperformance.
Nicol Stephen mentioned the arc of prosperity. Will he concede that one aspect of that arc is that the countries in Europe with spectacular growth rates are independent countries that have control over their own economies?
I call Keith Brown for a question on a constituency matter.
Will the First Minister—and, indeed, all members—join me in offering the Parliament's condolences to the young family of John Noble, a firefighter from Alloa fire station in my constituency, who was tragically killed while answering a call to a school in Dollar yesterday? We should also give our condolences to the other firefighters who were injured—including one who is critically ill in hospital—and to their families.
Is the First Minister aware that Carlsberg-Tetley has announced the proposed closure of its operation in my constituency? It blames high inflation and market pressures. The closure will mean the loss of 58 jobs in a community that is already under some pressure.
I have been in touch with the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism about the involvement of the Government's partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—team; he assured me that that involvement will happen. Will the First Minister reassure families that are threatened by the closure that the Scottish Government stands fully behind them? It is a difficult time for those families, and a statement of support from the Scottish Government would provide them with welcome reassurance.
I join Keith Brown in offering condolences to John Noble's family, as all members will want to do. What happened reminds us that people in our emergency services put themselves at risk every day in a range of activities. Such tragedies serve as a reminder of the efforts that those people make every day on our behalf.
If the potential Carlsberg-Tetley redundancies go ahead, the Forth valley local response team will provide support to those who are affected. That team stands ready to provide support, advice and guidance on retraining and alternative economic opportunities. The constituency member can be certain that the Scottish Government stands behind and supports people who face economic adversity, and I hope that the Parliament does, too.
Out-of-Hours Care (Overseas Doctors)
To ask the First Minister what concerns the Scottish Government has regarding the use of "flying" doctors brought into Scotland to provide out-of-hours care to patients. (S3F-464)
The Scottish Government would clearly be concerned if out-of-hours services were being provided by doctors who were so tired that that tiredness affected their clinical judgment. More important, patients would be alarmed if they thought that that was the case. That is why I am happy to re-emphasise publicly that national health service boards must ensure that they do not operate any arrangements that would lead to such situations. We are asking every NHS board to verify its position. I can confirm that NHS Quality Improvement Scotland has reviewed every NHS board's performance against national standards and has told me that it is satisfied that systems are in place to provide patients with safe and effective out-of-hours care.
I thank the First Minister for his response, and particularly for the contact that has been made with NHS boards, which ultimately have the duty of care.
Will the Government undertake to include the use of flying doctors in the current review of general practitioner work patterns, which are the result of a United Kingdom contract that has been inherited from the Labour Government, and endeavour to remedy the problems relating to the number of flying doctors who come to Scotland? Those problems have been highlighted by recent disclosures that are of great concern to the British Medical Association and Scottish patients groups.
"Better Health, Better Care" makes it clear that we are determined to work with the profession on improving access to primary care services and on extended and flexible opening hours. Currently, we are working with the health boards to ensure the long-term sustainability of out-of-hours services, and we are specifically considering future models of out-of-hours care that would extend the roles of all health care professionals who are involved in those services. I hope that that answer gives Christine Grahame some satisfaction.
The First Minister correctly referred to the role of NHS boards, but I direct his attention to the problem that European Community law gives European Economic Area nationals rights relating to work without requiring the possession of work permits. Therefore, the guidance that NHS boards issue to non-nationals essentially deals with non-EEA persons. How does the First Minister intend to pursue the matter that Christine Grahame raised in relation to those who are covered by European Community law?
I will consider that issue and write to Ross Finnie.
With respect to the working time regulations, there is an issue relating to whether records of rest require to be maintained, but there is a general duty on all employers to ensure that all their employees receive, for example, the rest that is required by regulation. However, I will investigate the general application of European Union law and write to Ross Finnie.
Will the First Minister reassure members about access to general practitioners? The British Medical Association has advised us that the Government's intention is to adopt a within-24-hours model for access to GPs, which has been adopted in England, rather than a within-48-hours model for access to health professionals, which the Labour Government in Scotland favoured. Will the First Minister reassure us that he does not intend to go down the 24-hour access route?
Yes, I can provide that reassurance. We are presently in constructive dialogue with the profession on the contract and on how such matters can best be implemented. I will arrange for the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to keep Richard Simpson in touch with the way in which that dialogue is progressing.
Can the First Minister give an assurance to patients in Scotland that all the so-called flying doctors have appropriate training in all NHS procedures and protocols and can be held to account for the provision of care in the same way as our own doctors?
All people in that position are registered with the General Medical Council. That should give the member the assurance that she is looking for. They are all registered doctors and would be allowed into the service only on that basis.
Housing
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to address housing needs across Scotland. (S3F-452)
We published our housing discussion document, "Firm Foundations", in October, and the consultation closes tomorrow. "Firm Foundations" sets out the Scottish Government's radical and ambitious proposals, including proposals to increase the overall housing supply, to provide assistance for first-time buyers and to reform the social housing sector.
This week, the First Minister's favourite minister, Stewart Maxwell, announced the further roll-out of the homestake initiative. Bizarrely, he did so, as the First Minister has indicated, ahead of the end of the Government's consultation, which sought responses on the difficult issues of how we can balance the needs of those who seek to own their homes against other housing needs and how—indeed, whether—we should target support. Will the First Minister confirm that that was his housing minister's uniquely gracious way of letting us know that he has now dumped the SNP's ill-conceived pledge to give a £2,000 first-time buyers grant?
That £24 million scheme is being made available to help many people in Scotland get a foot on the housing ladder. I am sure that there are measures in "Firm Foundations" that Johann Lamont will support as well as many measures that she will criticise.
Let us remind ourselves why the initiative is necessary. Since 1999, there has been a 28 per cent increase in the number of households applying as homeless. In the last year of the previous Administration, there were nearly 60,000 applicants. Nearly 6,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, and the number of households in temporary accommodation has more than doubled in the past five years—there has been a 137 per cent increase in the number of such households.
I mention those statistics because, for part of that period, from 2004 to 2006, Johann Lamont was the Deputy Minister for Communities. Just occasionally, in asking such questions, she should accept her inescapable responsibility for the housing crisis in Scotland, which the current Administration inherited and intends to tackle.
Domestic Abuse Courts
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will revisit its decision not to roll out domestic abuse courts across Scotland. (S3F-460)
The evaluation of the pilot domestic abuse court in Glasgow recognised the fact that
"any roll-out would not necessarily involve direct replication"
of the pilot model. That is why we will examine with the judiciary the options for a specialist domestic abuse court serving the whole of Glasgow. The member will be aware that the current system serves the south side in particular. We will also encourage and support other areas in pursuing new approaches, in line with local needs. It would be premature to reach decisions on further domestic abuse courts.
I make it absolutely clear that this Government abhors domestic abuse. We are committed to firm action to bring cases to court, to support victims and their families and to reduce the harm that is inflicted on children by that serious crime.
I note the work that is being done in Glasgow and the First Minister's comments about not directly replicating that system throughout Scotland, which would not necessarily be the best way forward.
However, the First Minister will be aware that the domestic court pilot model in Glasgow has been successful in delivering faster, more effective justice, more convictions and better support for victims. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has given us a number of reasons why that model will not be rolled out, citing everything from the cost of trams to the lack of court buildings, and delay because of the wider review of summary justice.
As the incidence of domestic abuse is increasing, is it not time for the First Minister to listen to the chief constable of Strathclyde Police, who this week came out in support of rolling out the courts across the country, including in Edinburgh, where many of the necessary support facilities are already in operation and where the volume of cases would justify that approach?
I welcome Margaret Smith's acknowledgement that a system that I hope will prove its success across the whole of Glasgow—once the discussions on expanding it are finished—and which can provide exceptional results is not necessarily the correct system for every area of Scotland.
When the Cabinet Secretary for Justice makes the point that there must be a relationship between decisions and the new, dramatic reform of the summary justice system in Scotland, he is saying that that relationship is important within the judicial system and affects the timing of rolling out important initiatives across the country. Margaret Smith should accept that.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on the basis on which supplementary and constituency interest questions are called.
Presiding Officer, you will be aware that I intimated a desire to raise a question about the horrific circumstances surrounding the death last week in Taupo, New Zealand, of a young woman from Holm in my constituency. Would it be in order, in the presence of the High Commissioner of New Zealand, to put on the record the gratitude of Karen Aim's family for the invaluable help, support and guidance that they have received in recent days from the local community and authorities in New Zealand, from consular staff, from Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, from local police in Orkney and, of course, from the Orkney community? Would it be in order for the chamber to be allowed the opportunity to express its profound sadness at Karen's death and the hope that Brian, Peggy and Alan Aim are given the answers to the many questions that they must be asking at the moment?
Who is called is a matter of discretion for the Presiding Officer, but you have made your point.