Infrastructure Use (United States Military)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the use of Scottish Government-owned infrastructure by the United States military, in light of US air strikes on Iran. (S6T-02608)
I can confirm that issues relating to the conflict in the middle east, specifically around Gaza and Iran, were raised by the Scottish Government with the United Kingdom Government on 13 June at the British-Irish Council and, earlier today, by the First Minister with the Cabinet Office.
Carol Mochan will be aware that the recent United States military action in Iran was launched directly from American facilities in the USA and flights did not land in any other country, including Scotland. The UK Foreign Secretary said to the House of Commons yesterday that the UK had no involvement in the military action against Iran.
Carol Mochan will also be aware that the UK Government decides which flights can enter the UK. Ultimately, although the Scottish Government can—and does—make representations on the situation in Iran and related issues, those matters are the responsibility of the UK Government.
The cabinet secretary will know that Prestwick airport is in my region, South Scotland. Can he assure my constituents that sites such as Prestwick airport will not be used to facilitate attacks on Iran by the USA, nor to support Israeli aircraft, given that those efforts have no United Nations backing whatsoever? Will he also be clear about what US activity is currently happening at the Prestwick airport site?
As Carol Mochan might appreciate, I have been keen to understand as much as I can about the issue. I can give her the assurance that I have not seen any information that would support any conclusion about the direct involvement of Scottish facilities in military attacks on Iran. As I have already shared with her, it is a matter of public record that those were conducted by the United States through direct flights that were refuelled in the air from bases in the United States of America, and which attacked Iran and returned without going to any other base.
I understand Carol Mochan’s more general point about Prestwick airport. If she has any information that would support her concern, I will be grateful to hear it.
We remain in dialogue with the United Kingdom Government. Carol Mochan’s party is in government in the UK; perhaps she would use her good offices to raise the issue with the responsible UK ministers. When it comes to devolved responsibilities, we will do everything that we can, but she will appreciate that there are limits.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s response. I, too, take my responsibilities seriously. Will the cabinet secretary join me, as well as—I am sure—the majority of Scots and people across the world, in saying that we cannot engage in diplomacy through violence, that we must call for peace and that all our efforts towards peace must be peaceful. For our part, that must include not selling to the US or Israel weapons manufactured in Scotland that might be used to move the world closer to war.
I agree with Carol Mochan, and I appreciate the fact that she has taken the opportunity to cogently and persuasively make her case. We have a moral responsibility. I agree with her on that. Even if we can use only our voices, we should do so. As she knows, this Parliament does not have powers over foreign affairs. I would wish to change that; perhaps, in good time, I can persuade her that she should support that, too. In the meantime, we will use our voice to support peace and diplomacy.
The First Minister has made a number of statements that very much echo the position of the secretary general of the United Nations, António Guterres. We will repeat our view that we believe that only diplomacy will bring conflict to an end. I appreciate the way in which Carol Mochan has raised her questions this afternoon.
The United States has acted decisively to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities. We must remember that Iran is a state sponsor of global terrorism. In such circumstances, we must stand firmly with our allies the United States and Israel in defence of international security. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether any formal arrangements, including memoranda of understanding, exist to allow US military usage of Scottish Government-owned infrastructure such as Prestwick airport, and does he agree that such support is right and responsible?
I would have to check the status of memoranda of understanding, but I am not aware of any. However, Stephen Kerr will appreciate that it is a matter of public record that Prestwick airport is used by the United States Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force and a number of air forces from the middle east.
The topical question today specifically relates to the situation in Iran. I was able to give the member who lodged the question the assurance—which I also give Mr Kerr—that Prestwick was not used as part of those attacks on Iran.
However, facilities in Scotland are obviously used by our allies. Given the concerns of a great many people in this chamber and among the public about what is happening in Gaza in particular, it is entirely legitimate that we ensure that we do everything that we can to support peace and a resolution for the people of Gaza, and, as I have often said to Stephen Kerr, for the hostages who are being held by Hamas, who should be released.
In 2023, it was reported that the airport had received a boost of more than £20 million through its military flight usage. Although it is hard to ascertain the true number, it has also been reported that, since 2017, the Pentagon has paid more than £70 million through some means or other for the use of Prestwick airport. It has also been used as a hub for North Atlantic Treaty Organization flights in order to send supplies to Ukraine, for example.
Given that the Scottish Government owns the airport, what impact would the removal of any military usage and loss of associated income have on the airport’s ability to compete as a going concern—or, indeed, to be sold as a going concern, which I presume is still the Scottish Government’s position?
The first thing to acknowledge is that Prestwick is an excellent airport, which is why it is used for both civil and military purposes. It is fair to say that the militaries of different countries often use bases; if they are dealing with military materiel, they tend to fly from one military base to another. In the UK, there are two bases that are operated by the Royal Air Force that have a significant US Air Force presence. That being said, as I have already said, Prestwick is used by the air forces of allied countries, which is entirely appropriate.
However, given the very legitimate concerns about what has been going on in the middle east, it is unsurprising to me that colleagues want to understand how we are operating things and that we are doing so as best as we possibly can; I, too, am keen to understand as much as I can.
Jamie Greene is absolutely right that Prestwick is an excellent airport that serves both civil and military flights.
The majority of Prestwick’s income comes from fuel sales revenues, most of which are driven by military customers. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that Prestwick’s use by the US Air Force directly contributes to the viability of the airport, which also means that the Scottish Government, as the airport’s owner, benefits financially from the US Air Force refuelling at the airport?
As I have pointed out to colleagues, Prestwick is a facility that is used for both civil and military flights. What is true for US aircraft using the facilities is true for aircraft from other allied air forces that also use what is an excellent airport. I foresee that continuing.
That being said, I am sure that the Presiding Officer would wish me to bring my remarks back to the actual subject, which relates to Iran. It is important to differentiate between the general use of a facility for military purposes and other use. However, I was able to give the chamber an assurance, because it is a matter of public record, that the American attacks on Iran took place from the United States of America and did not involve any military facilities in any other country, least of all Scotland.
Community Payback Orders (Breaches)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that there were almost 30,000 breaches of community payback orders in the last 11 years. (S6T-02606)
Presiding Officer, 78 per cent of community payback orders that finished during 2023-24 did not involve any breach applications during the duration of the order. When a CPO is breached, it is up to the independent courts to decide the most appropriate outcome, based on all the circumstances of the case, and that might include the imposition of a custodial sentence.
Community payback orders are a flexible and robust disposal, with a consistently lower reconviction rate compared with short prison sentences. That is why our budget for 2025-26 includes an additional £11 million in support for community justice services.
Community payback orders are frequently handed down as an alternative to custody, including in cases of violence and domestic abuse. It should follow that, when such an order is breached, criminals should be considered for a custodial sentence. Shockingly, however, only 26 per cent of CPO breaches led to a prison sentence in that period, while even more criminals simply got another community payback order right after breaching the first one.
The very least that Scots expect is that criminals should carry out the sentence that they have been given, or face consequences if they do not, including going to prison. In response to that scandal, will the Government bring in tougher sanctions for criminals who violate community payback orders, and ensure that actions have consequences?
It is for the courts to decide what proper punishment is. A community payback order is a high-tariff community disposal. It is flexible and robust, and it can be enhanced. It can involve someone being tagged or restricted to a curfew, and it can be combined with a restriction of liberty order or a restricted movement requirement.
Ms Dowey has not indicated that, over the period in her question, which is 12 years, the 29,500 CPOs that were revoked due to a breach amounted to 16 per cent of the total number of CPOs, meaning that 184,424 community payback orders were completed or terminated.
I do not think that victims will be reassured by that response. The Scottish National Party has been clear that it wants more community payback orders and fewer people in prisons. We see that in its two-tier sentencing guidelines for under-25s, presumption against short sentences and early release of hundreds of prisoners. It should be a source of embarrassment for the Government that so many criminals thought that they could get away with breaching the terms of their sentence. It is more embarrassing still that, in the majority of those cases, there were apparently no meaningful consequences.
There is also a lack of transparency. More than 2,200 criminals were issued with other penalties, and more than 7,300 were issued with other outcomes, but the SNP Government does not state in its data what that means. Almost 2,000 were listed as “Outcome not known”. That is not good enough. If the Scottish Government is not serious about criminals completing their punishment, why should we expect offenders to respect their sentence?
The facts of the matter are that, in 2023-24, 71 per cent of community payback orders were completed and 78 per cent did not involve any breach. Nearly 30 per cent of CPOs that were revoked due to a breach resulted in a custodial sentence and another 30-plus per cent resulted in a new community payback order. As I said, CPOs can be enhanced and made more onerous for individuals. It is entirely right that people have to pay back to communities, as opposed to the taxpayer paying for a short-term sentence that, at the end of the day, is less effective.
Monetary penalties can also be issued for those who have breached a CPO. The other penalties that are issued can include a drug treatment and testing order or even a restriction of liberty order.
Community payback orders make a significant contribution towards the wider objective of strengthening alternatives to custody and ensuring that our prisons are used for those who should be there. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on what assessment the Scottish Government has carried out in relation to community justice and reoffending rates?
The evidence is clear that community sentences are more effective in reducing reoffending than short prison sentences of up to 12 months. Community disposals may also provide greater opportunities for rehabilitation, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. Specifically, the reconviction rate for those given community payback orders in 2020-21 was just under 28 per cent, compared with more than 50 per cent for those who completed custodial sentences of one year or less. Protecting victims and the public from further harm is our absolute priority, and that is entirely consistent with our approach to community justice.
When there is a custodial sentence, the justice system ensures that the offender complies with that sentence. However, when there is a non-custodial sentence or, indeed, an electronic monitoring order, a high percentage of those are not enforced. What is the cabinet secretary doing to ensure greater compliance with community disposals?
As I have demonstrated in my answers to Ms Dowey and other members, there is a high compliance rate with community disposals. However, crucially, where there is non-compliance, it is a matter for the courts to decide what other punishment is appropriate.
That concludes topical question time. I will allow a moment or two for front bench members to reorganise themselves.