Chamber and committees

We are seeking to make those improvements with the laws that we have passed and the policies that we have put in place, but there is more to be done. Of course, the ordering of interim interdicts or non-harassment orders are issues for courts. I have already said how seriously we take addressing the backlog, particularly for victims of domestic abuse or violence against women and sexual violence. That is very important. We are also increasing money to front-line organisations so that women in those situations can have access to help and support.

There is a great deal to be done to recover from the pandemic and get back on track with making those changes. The Parliament has made world-leading changes over many years and in many cases, because too many women suffer the impact of domestic abuse and it is incumbent on us all to ensure that the policies and resources and the legislative framework are in place to better tackle that.

Of course, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has already given much of that information to Parliament in a statement and then in his appearance before the Criminal Justice Committee, although I am happy to confirm the details, as we understand them at this stage.

Following a review by the Scottish Prison Service, we can confirm that there are no public protection issues as a consequence of the issue in relation to the eight first grant of temporary release cases that have been identified. There were, as I said, eight cases.

Jamie Greene asked just a couple of weeks ago who the eight people were and where they had been released to. I can confirm that, of the eight individuals, seven are actually still in custody as we speak, because, of course, first grant of temporary release is not final release, but is about allowing a prisoner some limited access—often escorted access, perhaps for a few hours—to the community for the first time.

All 285 of the open cases that the risk-scoring issue appeared to have affected have been checked by social work professionals, who have provided assurance, again, that no public protection issues have been identified.

On the specific question about the risk scoring—this is a key and fundamental point that Jamie Greene will, I know, understand—it is important to note that a decision to grant release would never be determined based solely on the displayed score. In such cases, there is a more holistic assessment of wider circumstances. Following the decision, there is a process of on-going and dynamic risk assessment and management.

It was a serious issue that was identified and the steps that I just outlined have been taken. Of course, if there is more information to share with Parliament, we will do that speedily, as we have done to date.

To complete the point on automatic early release, I note—as I set out very clearly in my previous answer—that what we committed to, we delivered and implemented in 2016, so the most dangerous prisoners who are serving long-term sentences no longer have access to automatic early release. I say again that that is not affected by what we have consulted on. I also note that, at that time, the Conservatives in this chamber actually voted against it.

There is a serious backlog in our court service that is caused, and has certainly been exacerbated, by Covid. We are, with the court service and the wider justice community, very focused on addressing that. I know that everybody who works in our court service and everybody who works in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is very seized of the importance of prioritising cases of domestic abuse and violence against women and children. They are very serious cases, as I absolutely acknowledge.

That is why we have invested in the justice recovery fund. It is why, in the budget, we are increasing the resources that are available to the courts service so that it can tackle the backlog for as long as that takes. We hope that there will be ways in which we can accelerate the process, which will be a priority for us.

More generally, and as my final point, I say that I do not think that it is right for anybody to downplay the seriousness of the impact of crime on victims; I never will. Any victim of crime is one victim too many, and the personal impact on them is serious.

However, the fact of the matter is that it is because of the priority that we in this Government have given to justice—not least through increasing, and maintaining the increase, in the number of police officers on the beat, and a range of other initiatives—that we now have one of the lowest rates of crime, including violent crime, for many years.

We will continue to take balanced and sensible decisions to make sure that people who deserve to be in prison are in prison. We will also support and promote wider efforts to reduce reoffending and support rehabilitation, because that is in the long-term interests of potential and actual victims of crime.

My MPs in the House of Commons just yesterday led a debate calling for a windfall tax not just on oil and gas companies but on any company that has made substantially increased profits as a result either of the current global situation or of the effects of the pandemic. They literally led that call in the House of Commons yesterday, and I have made clear my views on that in response to Anas Sarwar previously.

I hope that we can unite, in this Parliament, to call on the chancellor to make substantial and significant interventions next week to help families across Scotland and, indeed, across the UK who are struggling with the rising cost of living.

For our part, although our powers and resources are very limited, we will continue to do everything that we can, including the 6 per cent increase in the benefits that are under the control of Social Security Scotland, which was announced yesterday. We will take the action that we can, but, across Parliament, all of us should be calling on the chancellor to do much, much more when he gets to his feet in the House of Commons next week.

On the £150 payment, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy has set out clearly that, because of our limited powers and control over the data around that payment, we have made it in a way that gets help to people as quickly as possible, instead of it taking months and months.

Where we hold the power, we are doing so much more. We are doubling the Scottish child payment, for example, to help children in families on the lowest incomes. Unlike the Government south of the border, we have protected the council tax reduction scheme so that thousands upon thousands of households across Scotland do not pay any council tax at all. Where we have the power, we use that power, and where the power is limited, unfortunately, we cannot act in the way that we would want to.

That brings me back to the windfall tax. I do not know whether Anas Sarwar read the motion that was tabled in the House of Commons by SNP MPs yesterday. It called for a windfall tax on any and all companies that have made increased profits, which would include oil and gas companies. This is something that Anas Sarwar might want to reflect on. Yes, let us include oil and gas companies, but why would he want to exclude Amazon, for example, from that approach?

My final point is this: instead of Anas Sarwar standing up, week after week, asking for my views on something that I have no control over, would it not be better if he argued for those powers being in the hands of this Government in the first place?

We are using the power. We are doubling the Scottish child payment—a game-changer policy, according to child poverty campaigners. Where we have the powers, we use them.

Anas Sarwar says that the argument about powers does not matter. He has chosen to come to the chamber and major on the issue of a windfall tax. The Scottish Government does not have the power to impose a windfall tax. Let me be clear: the motion tabled in the House of Commons yesterday by SNP MPs would include oil and gas companies. Any reading of it would lead anyone to that conclusion.

The issue is really serious for families across the country. So, in the interest of trying to build consensus, I will prepare and sign this afternoon a joint letter with Anas Sarwar to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking them not only to impose a windfall tax but, because I suspect that their answer will be no, to give this Parliament the power to do it at our own hand. Then we can join forces and ensure that it is done and that it includes oil and gas companies, Amazon and other companies that have increased their profits. [Interruption.] Rather than just indulge in rhetoric, will Anas Sarwar argue for the means for the Parliament to do it?

As I said yesterday, we are drawing very heavily on the lessons from the Syrian resettlement scheme. I think that most people agree that, overall, that scheme was a success, but there will be lessons to learn about things that can be improved on.

The reasons why we have put the supersponsor proposal to the United Kingdom Government—we are, of course, still working on agreement on the detail of that—is to expedite the ability of Ukrainian refugees to come here and to ensure that we can operate in a holistic way. We are working very closely with local authorities and other partners to ensure that there is a real local focus, because I know that all parts of Scotland are keen to give a warm welcome to those who are fleeing the horrors in Ukraine. The approach that we are taking enables as many people as possible to do that.

We know that all these things are challenging, but if we look, for example, at the amount of waste that is going to landfill, we see that it is at its lowest since records began. We need to do more to maintain progress. We have also just recently announced the first investments from the recycling improvement fund to improve the quantity and quality of recycling. We continue to press ahead with all that, including, of course, the deposit return scheme, which will have a big impact on waste. We encourage people across the country to work with us as we try to reduce waste and have a more circular economy and to choose to recycle in the way that we all want them to. The Government will back that with the investment that is needed.

Siobhian Brown puts her finger on the fundamental issue. An independent report says that the impact of Scottish Government policies—the things that we can do and are doing within the powers that we have—are reducing by one third the cost of raising a child in a low-income family. That is the impact of having powers lying here in this Parliament. However, that impact is being undermined, because too many powers in that regard still lie in the hands of a Conservative Government at Westminster that is taking money away from the lowest-income families.

If we can reduce the cost of raising a child in a low-income family by 31 per cent with limited powers over welfare, just think what we could do if we had all the powers and if this Parliament were independent.

Some of that information was provided in my statement, but I am happy to expand on it.

Let me take numbers first. I was very careful to say in my statement that we have given a commitment that the flow of people from Ukraine whom we will support through the homes for Ukraine scheme and, we hope, our supersponsor route is uncapped. We have made an initial and immediate commitment to take 3,000 people and we hope that they will start to arrive as early as this weekend. We anticipate that we will take at least 10 per cent of the overall number of those who come to the UK, but we are not putting a cap on that.

It is worth making the point that that is in addition to people who will come through the family scheme and will settle with families who are already here. Last week, and again this morning in Glasgow, I met members of the Ukrainian community, many of whom are already going through the process of getting visas for family members via the family scheme so that they can come here.

That is the scale of the commitment. It would be wrong to misrepresent that by saying that we have a fixed commitment to take 3,000 people. Everything that I have said has made it clear that that is not the case.

My advice to people in Scotland is that, if they can offer accommodation, they should register their interest through the UK Government portal that was launched on Monday. We are working with the UK Government on how we access that data, so that we know who has volunteered in Scotland. We also want to get data from the visa application process so that, once people are here, we can make the matches.

As I mentioned in my statement, one of the agencies with which we are working closely is Disclosure Scotland, so that there are disclosure checks on people who volunteer, because safeguarding is really important.

Finally, we obviously need to start planning in relation to services now—we are doing a huge amount of planning—but we do not yet know exactly how many people will come to Scotland. Therefore, it would be wrong and inappropriate to cap figures for financial support, just as it would be to cap numbers of people. That will also apply to mental health support and local government support. We will need to make sure that, in addition to the tariff that the UK Government has agreed will be publicly available, the money that the Scottish Government provides is commensurate with the number of people who come here. Again, I set out in my statement a commitment to make £15 million available, as of today, in addition to the UK Government tariff resources. Just over £11 million of that will be allocated to local authorities immediately.

We are working across a range of things, and all members will appreciate that, as we agree the operational details—as I hope that we will; this still depends on the UK Government agreeing to give visas so that people can come—and we know when, where and how many people will be arriving, we will have to continue to flex arrangements and make sure that they are appropriate to the scale of the challenge and obligation that we are meeting.