Plenary, 27 Apr 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, April 27, 2006

Official Report 656KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2245)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Does the First Minister appreciate how angry and concerned people were when they learned yesterday that more than 1,000 convicted foreign criminals, including murderers and sex offenders, had been released on to our streets when they should have been deported? I appreciate that it is not a mess of the Scottish Executive's making, but the First Minister is responsible for public safety in Scotland. I understand that no information is available yet on the number of such prisoners who were released from Scottish prisons but—this is more important—does the First Minister have any idea how many of those 1,000 individuals now live in Scotland? What efforts are the Scottish authorities making to help to track them down?

Ms Sturgeon will be aware that the Home Office does not release the details of individual cases, which creates a complication in clarifying the matter for the public. Of course I share any public concern about the situation, even if it affects only England and Wales, although it may affect the whole of the United Kingdom.

It is important to state on the record the figures for Scotland in the past year. In Scottish jails, 188 individuals who reached the end of their custodial sentences were identified as foreign nationals. Of those, 26 were released into the custody of the immigration and nationality directorate for deportation, as has been identified by the directorate. The procedure that we follow is different from that for prisons in England. The procedure that has been agreed between the IND, the Home Office and the Scottish Prison Service is that when an individual has been identified for deportation, the Home Office—through the IND—informs the Scottish Prison Service about that individual and the SPS releases that person into the IND's custody.

There is not yet evidence to suggest that any individuals were wrongly released within that general procedure, but it is important to clarify the position. That is why the Scottish Prison Service is urgently seeking clarification from the Home Office so that it can identify whether any individual in the total of just over 1,000 for which the Home Office is responsible has any connection with a Scottish prison.

I thank the First Minister for his full answer

Does the First Minister appreciate that, notwithstanding whether any such individuals were released from Scottish prisons, any number of the 1,000 who were released throughout the United Kingdom could now be resident in Scotland? [Interruption.] This is a serious matter. Does he agree that, as soon as it was known that prisoners had been wrongly released, every police force in the UK—including Scottish police forces—should have been alerted so that efforts could be made to trace the individuals? We know that the Home Office has been aware of the fiasco for the best part of the past year, but has been incapable of getting it under control. When did the Home Office tell the Scottish Executive about the problem and when were Scottish police forces given a list of people for whom they should be on the lookout?

Given the difficulties that appear to have arisen in the Home Office in recent days, I suspect that it still could not identify some individuals in the list to Scottish police forces or to police forces in England or Wales.

It is important that the Scottish police forces not only stand ready to assist the Home Office in identifying or dealing with individuals, but that they should already be doing so if they have identified in discussions someone who needs to be tracked in Scotland or picked up for deportation. That is the right procedure. It would not be right for ministers here or down south to become involved in the details of discussions on individual cases between the police forces and the IND, but it is important that we ensure that Scottish police forces, which are within our responsibility, co-operate fully with the Home Office. That is precisely what we have done in conversations that have taken place this morning.

I asked the First Minister when the Scottish Executive was informed of the problem because I understand that the Executive had no knowledge of it until yesterday, which is absolutely incredible. Does the First Minister agree that it is completely unacceptable that the Scottish Government was not alerted immediately of an on-going blunder that has serious implications for public safety in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he join me in telling the Home Office to get its act together and to start to show more concern for the interests of the public in Scotland and the rest of the UK?

I am as disappointed as many members are, and probably angrier than they are, about the public safety issues. However, we must see the responsibility that we have for public safety in Scotland in the wider context in which we operate. The Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish police forces not only need to deal with the issues—they need to get clearer answers from the Home Office to assist them in dealing with those issues.

We in Scotland should be concerned that the problem is happening south of the border, where many Scots regularly travel. I hope that Ms Sturgeon accepts that, and I hope that she is not suggesting that we should be parochial. We can be part of the solution for the whole United Kingdom. In exercising our responsibilities, we must ensure that our agencies can conduct themselves in a way that assists the Home Office in dealing with its difficulties and which also protects the safety of members of the public in Scotland.

I am not yet satisfied that the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish police forces have all the information they require to ascertain whether they are in such a position. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone has been wrongly released from a Scottish prison when they should have been deported or that any of the people in question is lost in Scotland, but there has been no absolute clarification about that. Therefore, we expect the Home Office to clarify for the Scottish Prison Service and the police forces in Scotland as soon as possible any involvement that they must have.

I am glad that the First Minister accepts his responsibility for public safety. Does he agree that his having that responsibility is the reason why the Home Office should have alerted the Scottish Executive to the problem long before yesterday? Does he agree that the Home Office is clearly a Government department in chaos, and that that has clear implications for Scotland? Perhaps he will agree that if Westminster is incapable of running an efficient and effective immigration system—as seems to be the case—it is time for the Scottish Parliament to take responsibility for running such a system.

I have said what I am about to say before and will say it again. There are two types of response when such situations arise: first, there is the responsible response, which involves using the responsibilities that we have, ensuring that the agencies that operate on our behalf are acting properly, and making it clear to people who have responsibilities that if they are letting us down, they need to sharpen up and ensure that all the information is available that will allow us to do all that. The alternative response is to try to turn every public policy difficulty, public service delivery difficulty or crime and safety difficulty into a constitutional argument to justify the ludicrous position that Ms Sturgeon adopts on separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that would be the wrong response on this occasion. This is not a matter for political or constitutional debate; it is a matter of public safety and should be treated as such. Therefore, everyone should take it more seriously.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2246)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

The First Minister will no doubt have been as horrified as I was to learn that Callum Evans, who was convicted yesterday in Glasgow of the most gruesome murder of John Hatfield, had been under a restriction of liberty order for previous serious offences at the time of the attack. We have heard that the First Minister and the Home Office cannot tell us how many foreign criminals who should have been deported are now at large in Scotland, but can he tell us how many other tagged individuals, like Mr Evans, have in the past year gone on to commit offences while under a restriction of liberty order?

I am sure that I have in recent days seen the figures for the number of people on restriction of liberty orders. I do not have them in front of me, but I will happily make them available to Annabel Goldie.

In respect of the particularly tragic case that she mentioned, I want to express—I am sure on behalf of all members in the chamber—our sympathy to the family of John Hatfield, and our congratulations to the police officers who were responsible for the capture of the person who has now been convicted and to the courts for convicting him so quickly.

It is important that the people who are responsible for electronic tagging ensure that all their staff are properly trained to use the system effectively and that any lessons that require to be learned by the new contractor—Serco Limited—from the mistake that seems to have been made in this case by one individual in tagging a person are learned and are implemented as part of the new contract.

As the public sees it, the Executive appears to be guilty of using community sentences such as tagging as a way to empty our prisons and at the same time to place the public at risk. Disturbingly, the "Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts" 2004-05 bulletin, which was published this morning, shows that a number of individuals who had been found guilty of serious crimes were released back on to our streets. For example, in the category of serious assault and attempted murder, 24 people were, as their main penalty, tagged, 213 were given community service orders and 169 were fined. I have to say that it is no wonder public confidence in the criminal justice system is in pieces. While the criminals gloat, the public is aghast. When so many dangerous individuals never go to jail, how can the Executive even begin to protect the law-abiding majority in Scotland?

It is important to reiterate that sentences that are imposed in our courts are matters for the courts and that such judgments are made by qualified judges and sheriffs. However, we also expect those courts to ensure that anyone who is dangerous and who has been convicted of a dangerous crime in particular is, in fact, locked away in order to protect the public. However, the court has a duty to make a judgment in each individual case about the sentence that is imposed.

I think there are facts in this matter that counter Annabel Goldie's accusations. First, our prison population is higher than it has ever been, so to suggest that we are in some way emptying prisons to cut costs, or that we are changing the nature of sentencing for that purpose alone, is very wrong. More people today are being locked up—I suspect for longer—in Scotland than was previously the case.

We are also changing the nature of sentencing to ensure that people who would have been on short-term sentences—particularly younger people, who in custodial sentences would simply have access to more serious criminals and would be more likely, as all the evidence shows, to lead a whole life of crime—are getting tougher sentences in the community that force them to address their offending and make them less likely to reoffend in the longer term. That is exactly the right policy. The combination of the two sentencing approaches shows, of course, that the number of convictions in Scotland is significantly higher today than it has been over recent years and that those sentences are, I think, more effective as a result.

Prison capacity may be an issue for another day, but I say to the First Minister that we already know that a number of foreign criminals are on our streets in Scotland, and we now learn that some of Scotland's most serious offenders are released back on to our streets without ever going to jail. Can the First Minister tell us how many foreign nationals who have been found guilty of serious assault and attempted murder, or of non-sexual crimes of violence, were not sent to jail and were therefore never even considered for deportation?

I think Annabel Goldie misunderstands the system. Deportations are not decided by the Scottish Prison Service or by Scottish courts; they are decided by the Home Office under the appropriate procedures. It is possible for a Scottish court to recommend consideration of deportation alongside another sentence, but it would ultimately be for the Home Office to determine whether a person should be deported—either as an alternative to a custodial sentence or at the end of a custodial sentence. In such cases we would ensure that the Scottish Prison Service worked with the Home Office to implement the decision. My understanding is that the SPS has done that. It is checking with the Home Office the figures for individual cases to ensure that that has always been the case.

I do not accept Annabel Goldie's assertion that there has been a change in sentencing policy that is leading to more dangerous people being out on the streets and not taken into custody. Our prison population is at a record high. The clear-up rate for crimes in Scotland is at virtually its highest-ever level, the number of crimes that are committed in Scotland is going down and the conviction rate is increasing, especially for knife crimes, for which I believe the conviction rate is up by 20 per cent. Knife crime was identified by this Parliament and this devolved Government as a priority. When the police and the courts—and indeed the Prison Service—are having those successes, they should be supported in going even further.

---

National Health Service (Targets)

To ask the First Minister what evidence the Scottish Executive requires in order to remove an NHS target in the interests of patient care. (S2F-2254)

We work to implement our targets in the health service. We also regularly review those targets, and this maintains their relevance to our overall aim of improving patient care.

Does the First Minister not consider that many of the targets that are set by the Executive demoralise staff because they are too often unrealistic and therefore unachievable? In order to keep their jobs, staff focus their energies on the target at the expense of the patient. Realistically, how does the First Minister think the national health service can achieve many of the Executive's targets when the Executive is continually reducing the number of beds and hospitals all over Scotland?

I do not think that the answer to all of this is simply beds. The answer is about the number of treatments and the way in which patients are cared for. Increasingly, the answer should be about the prevention of ill health as well as about the treatment of people who suffer from ill health. The answer lies in the combination of the right strategy and policies with investment and the targets.

I remind Dr Turner that, although meeting a target can be challenging for a member of staff—in whatever sector, be it public, private or voluntary—achievement of a target can be a fulfilling experience for a member of staff in any service. I am certain that health service staff across Scotland felt a considerable sense of achievement from the fact that they managed to reach the target, at the end of last year, of no one waiting longer than six months for either in-patient treatment or out-patient consultation; for the fact that deaths from heart disease, stroke and cancer in Scotland are down; and for the fact that, across the piece, the performance of the Scottish health service has been improving and is improving. We should be proud of that and proud of the staff for those achievements.

I am sure that the First Minister answered my question in good faith. I expect that he will accept that what I have to say is also said in good faith. How can the NHS meet many of the Scottish Executive's targets without an increase in the number of in-patient beds? Will the Scottish Executive listen to front-line staff and the public? When staff are under stress, patients may suffer.

One of the advantages that we have in our health service in Scotland with our devolved Government is the opportunity to get closer to health service staff and professionals and to discuss with them the strategy, the policies and the targets that we have set out.

I believe that one of the reasons why we are making such significant progress in the health service in Scotland—which includes reductions in waiting times, reductions in deaths from Scotland's killer diseases and improved procedures and arrangements in almost every aspect of our health service—is that we listen to health service staff and professionals and work with them to achieve progress. Instead of working against the grain of the professional expertise of those workers, we ensure that they come with us, not just so that they obtain fulfilment from achieving our targets, but so that we have the right targets in the first place.

---

HM Treasury

To ask the First Minister what input HM Treasury has to the spending commitments of the Scottish Executive. (S2F-2249)

HM Treasury calculates the size of the Scottish block through its spending review process, but it is then for Scottish ministers to decide on the use and allocation of those resources, subject to the agreement of the Scottish Parliament, to meet Scotland's needs and priorities.

Does the First Minister acknowledge that the increase in the Scottish budget from £15 billion in 1999 to £25 billion last year represents a massive 61 per cent cash increase, which is the highest percentage growth in our post-war history? That has been delivered by a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer for spending on Scottish priorities. Does the First Minister agree that there is no substance to the story that the Treasury will determine how we spend our money and that it is just so much froth from the overworked and fevered imaginations of members of the Opposition?

I could not agree more.

Here comes the froth.

I assure Mr Morrison that there is no fever among members of the Scottish National Party today.

In response to questions from Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister has already made it clear that he is deeply concerned about the disarray in the Home Office; he is quite right to be so concerned. Is he not equally concerned about the disarray in HM Treasury, which on Sunday told a newspaper that it was going to exercise control over how the Scottish Executive makes spending decisions, but on Monday did a flip-flop and changed its position?

Will the First Minister confirm to Parliament that the Treasury exerts no influence over the timing of spending decisions? If the Treasury exerts such influence, does the First Minister accept that that represents a constraint on Parliament's ability to decide when it spends taxpayers' money in Scotland?

I can confirm that although we discuss the timing of individual payments to ensure that our expenditure and the Treasury's overall financial management are not out of kilter, the Treasury does not influence the timing of projects or expenditure in Scotland. Decisions on the phasing of expenditure and the timing of the commencement of projects are made by the Executive—the devolved Government. It is right and proper that that should be the case. Given that John Swinney has had four days to try to rethink his question in the light of the statement that the Treasury made on Monday—I am sure that he was disappointed that the Treasury clarified that it does not exercise control over our spending—I think that he might have thought up a better one.

---

Union of the Parliaments (300th Anniversary)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the 1707 union of the Parliaments. (S2F-2247)

Hear, hear.

I hope that official reporters managed to catch Nicola Sturgeon's "Hear, hear." We are all looking forward to that.

Discussions are taking place with a range of organisations about what might be done to recognise the tricentenary of the Act of Union of 1707. The Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport will outline our plans before the summer recess.

I thank the First Minister for that positive response; there seems to be an outbreak of cross-party consensus on the issue.

I am sure that the First Minister will agree that, whatever one's political persuasion, the union of the Parliaments was a significant event in Scotland's history. Whether or not one takes the view, as I do, that the union has benefited Scotland, I hope that we all agree that the anniversary is important and should be commemorated. I hope that the Scottish Executive will work closely with Her Majesty's Government to put in place a programme of events that will bring the nation together in celebration of the union of the Parliaments.

Murdo Fraser making a contribution that attracted cross-party consensus in Parliament might be an even more remarkable event.

It is important that we recognise the anniversary and discuss our arrangements for that recognition with the United Kingdom Government. It is also important that the UK Government recognises that the anniversary will be not just a Scottish but a UK anniversary. We should use people in Scotland who have an interest in the matter to help us to prepare in the best possible way. Yesterday, I discussed with Professor Tom Devine the input that he and his colleagues might provide. I want to ensure that people in Scotland who have ideas to suggest and contributions to make take part in our discussions.

I hope that we can develop consensus in the Parliament on how we will take the matter forward. In 2006 and 2007, people in Scotland should be able to celebrate, commemorate or at least consider and recognise the historic events of our country's past without always regarding them as a political divide. It is important that today's youngsters learn about what happened in the past, so that our country can move forward.

I agree with the First Minister that children should be told about the past—and the future. Does the First Minister agree that the best way of commemorating the 300th anniversary of the union of the Parliaments would be to end the union of the Parliaments and to repatriate Scotland's wealth to the Scottish people?

This week, record figures for growth in orders for Scottish manufacturing were published and figures confirmed the doubling of the number of graduates in the Scottish labour market. Yesterday, it was announced that Scotland's economic growth, after several years of lagging behind that of the United Kingdom, is now on a par with the UK, and we are determined to drive growth even higher. This morning, the second-highest year-on-year increase in Scotland's population was announced. At a time when all those figures are moving in the right direction and Scotland's economy is stronger than it has been for a long time, the last thing we should do is take the advice of Alex Neil and the Scottish National Party and separate Scotland's economy from that of the rest of the UK.

I call John Home Robertson.

The parcel of rogues.

If we are going to delve into ancient history, the First Minister might like to consider the motion that I lodged this week about the role of my predecessors Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun and Patrick Home in 1707. Some members of that parcel of rogues were

"Bought and sold for English gold"

—perhaps including one of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's forebears—but some were not.

Does the First Minister agree that the only flaw in a union that brought much prosperity and success to Scotland was the abolition of Scotland's Parliament, which was finally corrected when our Labour Government passed the Scotland Act 1998 and created this Parliament? Now that we have a democratic Scottish Parliament, what is the point of having a nationalist party? Surely the Scottish National Party should be declared redundant.

Normally I do all that I can to oppose redundancies and help Scots to find jobs, but Mr Home Robertson has perhaps identified an exception.

---

Private Water Supplies

To ask the First Minister what assistance will be available to small businesses that have to upgrade their private water supplies as a result of new regulations governing such supplies. (S2F-2260)

Rhona Brankin recently announced a non-means-tested grant scheme, which will assist appropriate individuals and businesses to invest in new equipment to improve their private water supplies.

The Scottish Executive estimates that the costs could exceed £10,000, with the average being £1,150, but the grant cannot exceed £800. Will the First Minister undertake now to review the level of assistance if it turns out that the Executive's estimates are too low, as many small businesses believe?

The budget for the grant scheme is £8 million in each of the next two years. That is a substantial contribution to what is primarily a private cost, but we are committed to making it and it is important that we do so, given the regulations that are coming into force. We hope that people throughout Scotland will ensure maximum take-up of the new grant scheme.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—