Plenary, 24 Nov 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, November 24, 2005

Official Report 764KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1939)

When I next meet the Prime Minister, I will tell him that I am ashamed of Scotland's Opposition parties. I will tell him that the way in which Nicola Sturgeon and others have this week condemned the improvements for the children of asylum seekers in England does not reflect Scottish public opinion. I will tell him that the Scots are good people, that we care about others and that we will not allow petty party politics to distort our national character.

I do not know what planet the First Minister lives on. I have never opposed improvements to the treatment of asylum seeker children in England. I want improvements for asylum seekers everywhere.

I draw the First Minister's attention to comments made by his Minister for Communities, Malcolm Chisholm, who, when asked on 22 September about the Executive's position on the use of dawn raids to remove asylum seekers from Scotland, said, "we are against that". Was Malcolm Chisholm speaking on behalf of the Executive?

This Parliament spoke unanimously on the matter. It said unanimously—although with the abstention of the Scottish National Party rather than with its whole-hearted support—that we should convey to the Home Office the widespread concerns about practices such as so-called dawn raids, the handcuffing of children and the removal of children by large groups of officers in uniform and body armour. The ministers around me have been conveying those widespread concerns, as have our officials on our behalf.

In the discussions that we have had with the Home Office—as the Home Office minister made absolutely clear this morning in his interviews on the BBC—we have not only influenced the position that will exist here in Scotland, but we are on the verge of securing improvements to the system across the whole United Kingdom. That might be a problem for the SNP, the Greens and the Trots. It should not be a problem for the Tories and I would be surprised if it were. It is a better thing than could have happened before.

It is better that the forced removals in Scotland will happen in a more humane way and it is better that the education and social services in Scotland will be engaged well in advance of any decision to go ahead with a forced deportation. Further, it is better that that will happen in other parts of the UK as well as in Scotland.

The so-called improvements that the First Minister refers to relate to something that, yesterday, the Home Office minister said "already happens".

I asked the First Minister a specific question. When Malcolm Chisholm said that the Executive opposed dawn raids in Scotland, was he speaking on behalf of the Executive? The First Minister has not said that he was not. In light of that, why did the Home Office minister say this morning that the First Minister has never, ever asked him to cease the practice of dawn raids in Scotland or anywhere else?

I have made clear that the Parliament spoke with one voice on this issue. When the Parliament spoke with one voice, we acted on that opinion.

We have also made crystal clear in this chamber that, perhaps unlike the SNP—although we do not know because we do not get the detail—we believe that the system of asylum and immigration in this country has to be fair and consistent but will sometimes involve the removal of people who have failed in that system. That is distressing for the individuals involved and needs to be done humanely. The descriptions of how some of the cases have been handled in the past are descriptions that we should challenge, and we should change the system accordingly.

However, a system has to exist. I made that clear in the chamber in September, again on 6 October and again last week, when I was asked the same question by Shiona Baird of the Greens. The position is crystal clear. There has to be a system and that system will involve deportations, but when they happen in Scotland we want them to happen humanely. That is what will happen.

I say to the First Minister that the Parliament did indeed speak with one voice. The problem is that the First Minister did not raise his voice to the Home Office. Is not it the case that the First Minister led the Parliament to believe that he opposes dawn raids and that he was negotiating a protocol with the Home Office to stop them happening in future? Now that we know that he has never raised the issue with the Home Office, that there will be no protocol and that dawn raids, in the words of a Home Office minister this morning, will remain a central part of the immigration system, the First Minister tries to rewrite history and tell us that he was never opposed to dawn raids in the first place. Is not it time for the First Minister to stop insulting everyone's intelligence and to stand up and be honest about his failure to deliver what he promised?

It is always hard to respond to the answers when one has a prepared script. I want to be clear about a number of things Ms Sturgeon's question refers to.

I looked up "protocol" in "Roget's Thesaurus" this morning. The first synonym for protocol is agreement. We are not dancing on the head of a pin about a word here. I say to Ms Sturgeon that we are trying to look after children, not to play with words or to play petty party politics.

Let us talk about leadership. Only last week, the member who remains the deputy chief whip of the SNP said:

"I can't in all honesty put myself forward to fight on a policy and a direction I don't believe in … It's inaction that's our problem."

How right he is. [Interruption.]

Order.

This morning, I also checked how often members of the SNP who have been elected to the House of Commons with a duty to raise these matters have raised them with Home Office ministers on the floor of the House of Commons during the past two months. I found that the answer is not once. Let us take no lessons in leadership from the absentee Alex Salmond or anybody else in the SNP.

When we came to the chamber in September and said that we were concerned about the practices we had learned about and that we wanted to ensure that education and social services became involved with children well in advance of any decisions being made, we meant it. We were supported by the chamber and we have carried out our promise. When the system changes, not just in Scotland but across the UK, I will be very proud that we have not only changed what happens in Scotland, but that we have influenced a policy and helped to protect children elsewhere, too. If SNP members had any decency left, they too would be proud of that.

Ms Sturgeon, this must be your last question.

Whatever the definition of protocol, the Home Office minister said loudly and clearly on the radio this morning that there will not be one. That is the reality. Is it not the case that the First Minister's complete lack of influence has been exposed in this episode? Does he not understand that if he wants to influence these matters, this Parliament must have the power to decide on them? If the First Minister keeps promising and cannot deliver, he will continue to let people down and the Home Office will continue to make him look foolish.

Order.

I thought that the debate in September was one of the most mature, reflective and, eventually, consensual that we have had in the six years since we were first elected. The issue is not about the personal egos of politicians, their relationships with other politicians or anything else; it is about the children and the impact that these policies will have on them. It is also about our responsibility and duty to ensure that children are properly protected and treated humanely. That is precisely what we have considered since the debate in September and precisely what we will continue to consider.

When we secure the agreement, the constitutional politics into which Ms Sturgeon eventually developed her argument in her final point will be shown for the sham it is. We in this country need to ensure that we do not just exert our own powers, but use them to influence the powers of others. In this case, we have done and will do that. As a result, the children of asylum seekers in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom will be treated better.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1940)

The Cabinet will discuss many issues of importance to Scotland at next week's meeting.

I hope that that will include a discussion about the difference between agreements, protocols, wishful thinking and pie in the sky. The spectacle to which Ms Sturgeon referred depicts a dented First Minister and a badly damaged Executive that are both clearly given scant regard at Westminster. That does not augur well for my getting any sense out of the First Minister on issues that are important to the people of Scotland, but I shall try.

Given the news today that, according to the National Grid, the country is not awash with gas and faces a tight winter, does the First Minister accept that existing energy sources will not meet future demand in Scotland?

We in Scotland have a clear and progressive energy policy of not only supporting our existing energy industries but, at the same time, developing the technology and resources to ensure that renewable energy can play an increasing part in Scotland's future. We are doing that in a way that not only ensures a better supply and a more sustainable Scotland but helps Scottish companies to be more competitive internationally.

Frankly, the First Minister can waffle all he wants, but a real and immediate problem faces Scotland. The lights may be going out on the Scottish Executive, but, as the House of Commons Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has warned, we cannot afford to have the lights go out over Scotland.

The First Minister's Westminster colleagues may ignore him, but the First Minister cannot ignore them or their support for continued nuclear energy generation. Therefore, will he confirm that he will not block any planning process to recommission nuclear energy in Scotland?

Our position on that is clear: we will not support the development of new nuclear power stations in Scotland until the nuclear waste management issues have been resolved.

If only Scotland's energy needs could be satisfied by the First Minister's hot air. It is perfectly clear that we need specific answers now. For the First Minister to imagine that the two processes must be consecutive is blockheaded and nonsensical. They can be concurrent; only a finite timescale is available. What is the timescale? Given the Prime Minister's apparent recognition of the need to replace nuclear with nuclear, what discussions is the First Minister having or intending to have with his Westminster colleagues to ensure that Scotland has an adequate energy supply for the future?

Our discussions with our colleagues in Westminster and Whitehall will be based around our policy, which is to ensure that 40 per cent of our electricity in Scotland is generated from renewables by 2020 and that we continue to support the technology and the capacity that will help that to happen. We will reiterate our clear policy position, which is that we will not support new nuclear power stations in Scotland until the important nuclear waste issues are resolved. The fact that the Conservatives do not seem to care about nuclear waste disappoints those of us who care about the environment and about the future of people in Scotland.

---

Asylum Seeker Removals

To ask the First Minister on what date the Scottish Executive expects to announce the details of the proposed new protocol between the Scottish Executive and the Home Office covering all removals of the children of asylum seeker families in Scotland. (S2F-1948)

We will announce the details as soon as possible. The discussions are complex and we will work towards achieving the right outcome.

I listened carefully to the First Minister's conversation with Ms Sturgeon. His position is now abundantly clear. The First Minister has concerns, but is it not the case that, in the final analysis, the First Minister supports the forced removal of asylum seekers, supports the use of dawn raids, supports the use of sledgehammers to break down doors, supports the use of handcuffs, supports the deployment of 12 immigration officers at a time, clad in body armour, and supports the manhandling of children in their nightclothes into a waiting van to be whisked away? He just wants it to be done more sensitively.

Is it not the case that, over the past two months, the First Minister has given Parliament the clear impression that he agrees with Malcolm Chisholm that the raids were heavy handed, completely over the top and unacceptable, but that he now appears to share the view of Tony "Jackboot" McNulty, who says that in no sense can the raids be described as terrorising children? Is it not the case that the First Minister has been trumped by Mr McNulty and has made a complete U-turn?

The answer, of course, is no. I have never heard such a ridiculous description of my opinion or of that of this Parliament.

The position that this Parliament adopted was not that there should be no deportations of people who have failed in this country's immigration system; the position that this Parliament adopted was that concerns about the way in which some deportations take place should be conveyed to the Home Office and that we should press for changes in the way deportations happen. That is exactly what has been happening.

Colin Fox would do better to support the will of this Parliament—I understood on the day that Parliament expressed its will that the Scottish Socialist Party supported it—and to ensure that we come to a good conclusion.

That is the second time this afternoon that the First Minister has referred to improvements and agreement. Will he tell us what differences his new agreement or improvements will make to the next family that faces forced removal? How will their experience compare with that of the Vucaj and Ahmed families, or that of the Kupeli family who, having lived in the Gorbals for four years, were suddenly dragged from their beds at dawn on 16 October? The family included nine-year-old Suna and her six-year-old sister, who wet herself because she was so frightened of the 12 uniformed immigration staff. The immigration staff bundled Suna, her mum, her dad and her sister off to a detention centre. Will the First Minister tell us when such abuse will be a thing of the past? Does he agree that it is time we had an amnesty for asylum seekers who have lived here for more than a year and that they should be allowed to stay?

There is a system for those who have waited the longest, and the system is used by some people who currently stay in Scotland. It would be wrong to give those people the impression that that option does not exist for them.

Tony McNulty, the minister with responsibility for immigration, has made it clear that matters should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In this country, we have to have—and those who oppose this will have to face the consequences of their position—a system whereby, when people have failed in the immigration or asylum systems and do not voluntarily agree to leave the country, there can be forced deportations. That is unfortunate and all of us wish that such deportations did not happen, but they have to happen. They happen in every developed country in the world.

My objective—and, as I understood it, the objective of this Parliament—is to ensure that when deportations have to happen, education services and social services are involved well in advance, to influence the decision as well as its implementation and to ensure that deportations are implemented humanely and under proper guidelines. Those are our objectives and we are making considerable progress on ensuring that that is what happens not only in Scotland, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We will continue to make progress and will report to Parliament when we have reached an agreement.

I begin by expressing my deep and serious rejection of the First Minister's allegation that any politician of any party has expressed resentment at improvements in the asylum system across the whole of the United Kingdom. I remind the chamber that it is the UK Government's opt-out from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that is the key source of so much of the resentment about the way in which the system operates.

I am not, as Tony McNulty suggested, hung up on the idea of a protocol; nor are the schoolchildren in Drumchapel, to whom the First Minister—

Question, please.

My question to the First Minister is this: if not through a protocol, then by what mechanism will the Scottish Executive live up to its acknowledged responsibilities to the children of asylum seekers in Scotland? After all, the First Minister is not merely the advocate for local service providers; he is the leader of the Government in Scotland. If he started behaving like it, they might start to treat him like it in London.

In a spirit of generosity, I welcome Patrick Harvie's disassociation from the way in which Chris Ballance treated this matter in the chamber yesterday afternoon and the constructive way in which he has put his question. I will respond in an equally constructive way.

The agreement put in place will, in Scotland, have to be reached between the UK Government's Home Office and its agencies and the Scottish Executive and our agencies. It will be a proper agreement, but it will reached after due discussion. Indeed, in response to Patrick Harvie at the last First Minister's question time in September and after my very first discussion of the matter with Charles Clarke, I said that it would go wider than Scotland. I hope that, when the agreement is made elsewhere in the UK, the Scottish Green party will welcome it.

At 5.30 on 26 September, an Iranian mother and her two children, who live in Morningside in my constituency, were subjected to a dawn raid. However, their circumstances were different. They were handcuffed and taken by van to a London detention centre. Although they produced the correct paperwork, their case was on-going and had still to be decided on. They were held in London for four days before being released to return to Edinburgh.

Will the First Minister assure me that he will do everything in his power to have such heavy-handed action stopped and that he will raise the matter with Mr McNulty when he meets him? Does he agree that we cannot have confidence in an immigration system that allows such a dreadful mistake to happen?

From experience of how some claims about individual cases turn out not to be accurate in every respect—although I am not saying that that is the case in this instance—I do not comment in the chamber on individual cases. Such matters are dealt with by the proper authorities.

The most important point is that authorities must prepare properly for such decisions. Indeed, I think that, if education and social services are involved in any decision about deportation and ensure that the position of children is properly looked after, better and more sensitive decisions will be made in cases such as the one Mike Pringle has outlined and it will not be necessary, after people have travelled such a distance and protested about their treatment, to have them returned and released in the way he described.

One reason for ensuring that proper advance discussions take place is to ensure that initial decisions are based on full and accurate information and on a complete picture of the family's life in the local community. That is why the agreement is so important; why we continue to pursue it; and why we are pleased to make some progress.

The Parliament knows that, yesterday, I asked the First Minister to restate the Executive's position on this matter. I believe that he has done so today. However, my question concerns the outcome of his failure to influence the Home Office minister who is here today. If nothing changes, does that prove that we need power, not merely influence?

In response to an earlier question, I said that, in my view, this matter is not about political egos, personalities, positions or relationships between ministers. I do not want to detract from the importance of this issue for the affected children.

In response to Margo MacDonald, I must say that this morning the Home Office minister with responsibility for immigration said on BBC's "Good Morning Scotland" that the changes that will come about will do so

"because of pressure from the First Minister and the Scottish Executive".

When the Home Office minister with responsibility for immigration describes a willingness to make changes across the system because of a decision made by this Parliament and enacted by me and by other ministers in the Scottish Executive, we might want to say now and again that the Parliament did a good thing, that it stood up and was counted, that the UK Government listened and acted, and that perhaps that was one of the reasons why the people of Scotland wanted a Parliament in the first place.

---

Police Safety

To ask the First Minister whether there will be any review of the safety of police officers acting in the line of duty. (S2F-1942)

The tragic events in Bradford highlight the dangers that our police officers face daily while they are protecting our communities. Our sympathies go out to PC Beshenivsky's family, friends and colleagues.

Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland undertook a thematic inspection of personal safety equipment across the Scottish police forces in 2004. Police officers' safety and police firearms capability are kept under constant review.

I thank the First Minister for his answer and echo his comments about the tragic circumstances in Bradford and the understandable outcry that followed. Does the First Minister agree that it would be wrong to conclude that it would be safer routinely to arm officers who are called to serious incidents without first considering the dangers of police officers carrying guns, including the dangers to themselves? Does he agree that there are other options? Does he further agree that it is right for chief constables continually to review the use of firearms and the 800 officers who are currently trained in the use of weapons? Does he agree that such reviews should explore the use of other weapons, such as Tasers, so that the safety of police officers who are acting in the line of duty—and the safety of the general public—can be assured?

It is important to keep those matters under constant review. We have an outstanding police force in Scotland that does its job in the most professional of ways. Police officers have outstanding training facilities and they are subject to top-quality training in advance of taking on the job and when they are on the job. They do not use firearms lightly, but there are circumstances in which they are allowed to carry them. When they do, they are subject to the law in Scotland. That is the right place for Scotland to be right now, but clearly the number of times and the circumstances in which firearms and Tasers can be used by police officers will be kept under review and we will discuss that constantly with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and others.

---

Nuclear Power

To ask the First Minister what contribution the Scottish Executive will make to any future reviews on nuclear power undertaken by the UK Government. (S2F-1953)

We will argue for a balanced energy policy and state clearly our position that we will not support further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved.

Does the First Minister accept that the best way to deal with the problem of nuclear waste is not to produce it? Will he therefore go on record as accepting that energy-rich Scotland does not need dirty, expensive and dangerous nuclear power when we have so many better alternatives? We can develop cheaper, cleaner and safer green renewables such as carbon capture and storage technology that can allow us to use fossil fuels cleanly. Will the First Minister go on the record and say plainly to the Prime Minister in London that Scotland does not want any more nuclear power stations because of the many reasons for opposing them? Will he stand up for Scotland on that issue and not bow to pressure from Tony Blair or the nuclear lobby?

I understand that listening is sometimes difficult for the SNP, but I think I have stated our position very clearly and that position remains our stated position. It will, of course, be conveyed to any energy review that is done. We will not only make that statement; we will argue the case and explain why we take this stance.

In the meantime, we will continue to promote renewable energy, as Mr Lochhead suggested. It will, however, be important for us to be consistent in that approach. For anyone who missed this discussion the last time it took place in the chamber, I remind everyone that Mr Lochhead has two opinions on this subject and it depends on whom he is talking to. He is keen to support renewable energy when that is popular, but when the heat is on and there is opposition to particular developments, he is very keen to support that opposition. The best form of renewable energy in this chamber might come from Mr Lochhead's hot air. After his performance yesterday afternoon, perhaps Mr Aitken could provide the base-load.

---

St Andrew's Day Celebrations

To ask the First Minister what preparations the Scottish Executive is making for the celebration of St Andrew's day. (S2F-1941)

Our Scottish Government is determined to expand the programme of events to celebrate St Andrew's day in Scotland and across the world. St Andrew's day 2005 will show that we are making progress, and I refer the member to the answer provided on Tuesday 22 November by the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform to PQ S2W-20087.

It would be churlish not to welcome any measure—even a half measure such as the ceilidh announced earlier this week by the Scottish Executive—to celebrate St Andrew's day, but does the First Minister accept that a ceilidh is no substitute for a holiday and that people will have a rather limited opportunity to celebrate if they have to go to their work? Given that the First Minister is already on record as stating that he is not instinctively opposed to a St Andrew's day holiday, will he give further positive consideration to my bill, so that the people of Scotland may have the opportunity of a national holiday to celebrate our national identity, our cultural diversity and our membership of the international community?

It was my experience growing up in Arran that we did not need a holiday to enjoy a ceilidh; we tended to get on with it anyway. Let me make it clear that next week's St Andrew's day celebrations do not consist only of a ceilidh, although that multicultural event will be important in itself. Events will be taking place throughout the world. Some will be supported by us and others will be supported and initiated by people of Scottish descent and people who have some affinity with the country and who want to celebrate their association with us. That is a good thing.

There are two essential prerequisites for consideration of a holiday on St Andrew's day. One is that there must be more demand and more of an existing celebration of that day, in Scotland and elsewhere. That is starting to happen, but we are not quite there yet. Secondly, we need to have a well-thought-through proposal to ensure that we do not add to the costs for either the public sector or the private sector in agreeing to an additional holiday. The proposal must ensure that anyone who takes a holiday or offers a holiday on St Andrew's day does so by substituting it for something else.

That concludes questions to the First Minister.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. The First Minister said early in First Minister's question time that no SNP MP had raised the issue of dawn raids in the House of Commons in the past two months. I draw your attention to the Official Report for 3 November, which shows that Pete Wishart, an SNP MP, asked in the House of Commons for a debate on the use of dawn raids by the immigration service, given the

"universal revulsion and embarrassment in Scotland about the use of that practice".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 November 2005; Vol 438, c 982.]

I ask you, Presiding Officer, to advise the First Minister on how to go about retracting his earlier statement and apologising for misleading this Parliament.

Let me make it crystal clear, Presiding Officer, that I said—and I absolutely stand by my statement—that no MP from the SNP at the House of Commons in Westminster has raised the issue on the floor of the House of Commons with Home Office ministers in the past two months. Ms Sturgeon should check the record. That is what was said, and no amount of procedural tinkering with Geoff Hoon, the Leader of the House of Commons, should be allowed to detract from that. If Alex Salmond—[Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear.

Alex Salmond, as leader of the SNP, should have been on his feet making it an issue at Westminster.

Ms Sturgeon, you have put your point on the record. That is read. I am responsible for questions and for timings, but I am not responsible for ministerial answers. That is a matter for the ministerial code. I have no doubt that the Government will reflect on that.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—