Stewart's oral questions to ministers

(S3O-13324) Tobacco Products Display Ban

2011-03-17T14:24:00.003Z

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

9. To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to implement a ban on the display of tobacco products by retailers. (S3O-13324)

The Minister for Public Health and Sport (Shona Robison): I confirm that the Scottish Government remains committed to the introduction of the display ban. Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of the on-going legal challenge, we will be working towards implementation of the display ban from April 2012 for large retailers and from April 2015 for small retailers. The change to the original implementation dates will also give retailers more time to prepare for the changes.

Stewart Stevenson: Does the minister recall that, 400 years ago, James VI wrote of people being enslaved bit by bit by tobacco? Does she share my utter contempt for a company that kills thousands of people every year and which is delaying the implementation of the ban? Does she agree that it is important that no new addicts are signed up and that young people are protected from the evils of tobacco?

Shona Robison: I agree with the member. That is why the recent legislation is focused on reducing the attractiveness and availability of tobacco products and preventing access to them by young people. That is also why increasing the penalties for breaching that legislation is so important. I remain hopeful that we can continue to build on Scotland’s journey towards becoming smoke free. We have come a long way from where we were on the acceptability of smoking in Scotland even 20 to 30 years ago, never mind hundreds of years ago, and we should all welcome that.

(S3O-13241) Historic Buildings (Protection)

2011-03-10T14:04:00.006Z

Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab): 4. To ask the Scottish Executive what the powers and responsibilities of Historic Scotland and local authorities are regarding the protection of historic buildings. (S3O-13241)

The Minister for Culture and External Affairs (Fiona Hyslop):

Through Historic Scotland, the Scottish ministers work closely with local authorities to protect and enhance our country’s historic environment. That work is carried out through a wide range of legislation, policy and guidance. The importance of historic buildings, individually or collectively, can be recognised by Historic Scotland through the listing process and by local authority designation of conservation areas. When change is proposed, the planning system ensures that the desirability of protecting a historic building’s particular character is a key part of the wider consideration of an application. Regulations are in place within the planning system to ensure that the Scottish ministers, through Historic Scotland, are involved at the appropriate stages in the oversight or handling of certain types of case.

Elaine Murray: The minister may be aware of the growing concerns about the number of listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas in my constituency that have fallen into disrepair. Indeed, there has been an e-mail campaign directed to her MSP address on the subject of St Mary’s Street, in Dumfries. The problem is that the owners often do not live locally and it is sometimes difficult to trace them or they do not respond to communication. Can the minister advise me of any examples of intervention to prevent the loss of built heritage that could be copied as examples of good practice? Will she also comment on the request for her to call in the planning application regarding St Mary’s Street?

Fiona Hyslop: The member raises a number of issues. In my first answer, I said that protecting the character of the historic built environment is a key part of the wider consideration of an application—it is not the only consideration, but it is a key one. In a number of cases, including that of the St Mary’s Street building to which the member refers, Historic Scotland has taken a view on whether account of that has been taken in that wider consideration.

As for good examples of communicating with absentee landlords or owners, I am more than happy to identify good practice and share it with the member if that would be helpful. One of the aims of the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which was recently passed by the Parliament, was to provide mechanisms whereby duties could be placed on those who do not want to improve or take care of the historic environment for which they have responsibility. The bill gives more powers to local authorities, rather than Historic Scotland, to intervene to ensure the financing of improvements, although in some instances it gives Historic Scotland powers of easier intervention that allow it to go into certain properties to ensure, for example, that repairs are made. The member might want to look at that piece of legislation, which we have just passed. I am also more than happy to identify examples of good practice to pass on to her.

Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): When I came into the Parliament some eight years ago, I asked the then minister about the vexed question of Historic Scotland’s failure to come to any agreement with the owner of Castle Tioram on the castle’s future. The Minister for Culture and External Affairs has given me encouraging noises over the past months. Will she take the opportunity, which will certainly be my last at culture questions, to update us on what is happening with the castle or will we have to wait another eight years before Historic Scotland finally sees sense on the matter?

Fiona Hyslop: I am conscious that the former Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution, Michael Russell, is sitting beside me. I have been in post for somewhat over a year now, and I can inform Ted Brocklebank that no new application has been submitted for Castle Tioram. However, active discussions are taking place with the owner, and Historic Scotland is working closely with him and his team to establish a new way forward to serve the castle’s best interests.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Does the minister believe that the regeneration of Portsoy harbour in my constituency through the provision of funding under the Historic Scotland conservation area regeneration scheme—CARS—will be a real boost to local tourism, will support the Portsoy traditional boat festival and will serve as an excellent example for other parts of Scotland?

Fiona Hyslop: Indeed I do. Since 2007, £16 million has been awarded to 34 locally run schemes. I understand that, in Portsoy, the £500,000 that has just been announced under round 4 of CARS is funding work surrounding the quay and is aimed at providing economic drivers and enhancing tourism. There are also wider social benefits, such as youth development skills that will be acquired through the repair of facilities that are to be used by local boat builders in the provision of after-school opportunities.

The funding is about not only regeneration and conservation but services that can have wider benefits for communities. I am delighted to agree with Stewart Stevenson on that point.

(S3O-13057) Food and Drink Sector

2011-02-24T14:39:00.003Z

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

4. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support growth in the food and drink sector. (S3O-13057)

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead): The Scottish Government and its agencies are actively supporting the food and drink sector’s growth to meet the target of £12.5 billion turnover by 2017. Since 2007, the industry has seen record figures, with turnover increasing by more than £1 billion during 2007-08 and exports increasing by 15 per cent between 2007 and 2009. It is our intention, through our national food and drink policy, to continue to help the sector to fulfil Scotland’s potential and be a world leader.

Stewart Stevenson: Given that sales of Scottish-branded food and drink in the United Kingdom have increased by 30 per cent under this Government, does the cabinet secretary believe that clear labelling of Scottish produce by protected geographic indication and Quality Meat Scotland and Marine Stewardship Council certification is essential if we are to continue to improve on that performance?

Richard Lochhead: I agree that labelling is extremely important. We are lucky in this country in that we have a reputation for top-quality food and drink. The more that we can communicate that message to the consumer—as the member indicated, not just in this country but elsewhere in these islands and overseas—the better it will be for our primary producers, processors and everyone in the food and drink sector in Scotland.

At the moment, the food regulations are making their way through the European Parliament and the European Commission. The Scottish Government is pushing for mandatory country-of-origin labelling right down to the Scottish level for all meat and dairy products, which would be a huge step forward in supporting those sectors.

(S2O-12460) Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004

2007-03-22T14:55:00.003Z

6. Mr Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to ensure that the provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 are used effectively. (S2O-12460)

The Deputy Minister for Justice (Johann Lamont): We have provided over £130 million to local partnerships to tackle antisocial behaviour and to promote community safety. Every local authority now has a dedicated antisocial behaviour team and a community warden service. Increasingly, local agencies are working with local communities and making effective use of the powers available to them to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour. We expect continued progress in implementing local antisocial behaviour strategies.

Mr McNeil: The minister will be aware that, although we have given local authorities the tools to do the job, some local authorities are less than enthusiastic about using those tools on behalf of their residents. Will she assure me that councils will not be rewarded for such an indifferent, half-hearted attitude? Will she make it clear that, in respect of the powers and money that local authorities have been given, they must use them or lose them?

Johann Lamont: First, I recognise that a significant number of local authorities have embraced the new powers. Understandably, local authorities that wish to represent their communities want the tools and resources to support those communities. When I have visited Duncan McNeil's constituency, I have been struck by the energy of community activists, who are also a crucial resource.

We have made it clear that we will support local authorities with resources and by providing advice, support and a challenging approach through our national co-ordinators, in order to ensure that the powers are used and the strategies are implemented properly. I agree with Duncan McNeil that we should not hesitate to withdraw funding from local authorities that are not making sufficient progress in implementing their antisocial behaviour strategies. Local authorities have a responsibility to their communities and we are committed to supporting those communities. Given the resources and the powers, local authorities must be challenged to ensure that their commitment to making communities safe is taken forward.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Is the minister aware of the answer to parliamentary question S2W-32271 that Robert Brown provided to me on Tuesday this week? The answer states that, although the pilot for parenting orders started on 4 April 2005, no such orders have been made, despite the fact that we are now more than halfway through the three-year pilot period. The minister will recall that during the debate on 2 October 2003—I know that both she and I were present during that debate—Margaret Curran stated:

"We cannot simply ignore the terrible damage that bad parenting can cause."—[Official Report, 2 October 2003; c 2271.]

In the light of Duncan McNeil's criticism of councils for not using the new powers, will she take money away from all the councils in Scotland that have not used the parenting order power that we agonised over, or does the responsibility for the situation lie at the door of the Minister for Justice?

Johann Lamont: The member has the advantage over me, in that I cannot report verbatim Robert Brown's answer to that question. However, I can say that the Executive and I are committed to the use of parenting orders. We have given local authorities the legislative framework and the funding for parenting orders, the need for which was identified by Parliament. Parenting orders are a means not just of dealing with parents who are acting inappropriately—they are not a threat to families—but of supporting families and ensuring that children are protected. We will continue dialogue with local authorities to challenge what seems to be their lack of use of a power. I emphasise that a blanket refusal by any agency to use any of the measures in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is unacceptable, so we will take action in that regard.

(S2O-12342) Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (Countryside Access)

2007-03-15T14:55:00.002Z

2. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West) (Ind): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied with the implementation of the provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 in respect of access to the countryside. (S2O-12342)
I declare an interest as president of the Ramblers Association Scotland.

Members: Hear, hear.

The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Sarah Boyack): I am satisfied with the progress that has been achieved in implementing the access provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. However, there will be scope within the wider review of the act, which we have indicated will be undertaken during 2007, to consider any matters relating to the access provisions.

I welcome the appointment of Dennis Canavan to the post that he mentioned. Future ministers will have to listen carefully to his representations.

Dennis Canavan: Is the minister aware of the complaints that have been made about the diversion of access funding, given that local authorities received £29.2 million in access funding up to March last year but spent only £17.4 million on access-related activities? Is she also aware of complaints that have been made that the access code is being breached in some areas, including on Balmoral estate, and that some landowners are challenging the 2003 act in the courts? Will she investigate those complaints and remind local authorities that they have a statutory duty to uphold and facilitate access? Will she remind them that selfish landowners must not be allowed to undermine one of the most radical and progressive pieces of legislation that the Parliament has passed?

Sarah Boyack: Further funding of £8.1 million for 2006-07 and 2007-08 for access-related activity has been made available to local authorities across Scotland in the grant-aided expenditure assessment. That money is not ring fenced, but I hope that local authorities will take seriously their responsibilities to implement the provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

The principles of the act were widely supported, and its provisions have secured wide acceptance in practice. However, I am interested in Dennis Canavan's concerns. I would be concerned if people believe that landowners are ignoring or deliberately breaching the access code. Obviously, I do not want to comment on any court cases, but I point out that the access code was subjected to wide consultation and a lot of discussion and negotiation. The final wording was not reached easily, but local authorities, landowners and groups representing those interested in securing wider access were involved in putting it together. I would be grateful if Dennis Canavan would write to me about any particular examples that I need to be made aware of.

Mr Alasdair Morrison (Western Isles) (Lab): Will the minister provide an update on the latest situation with the Pairc court case, which involves crofters from the Lochs area of Lewis? Those crofters are trying to secure the land that they live on, in spite of the best efforts of an absentee landowner, who is trying to thwart the crofters' legitimate aspirations. That landowner is similar to the landowners to whom President Canavan referred. Furthermore, will the minister outline what the Executive is doing to help to ease the problems that are posed by interposed leases?

The Presiding Officer: The minister must be careful, as sub judice considerations may be involved.

Sarah Boyack: The Scottish Land Court is now considering the Pairc case. A contribution of £16,000 has been received from Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It is expected that the first substantive hearing will take place in June. Matters are therefore progressing.

On interposed leases, section 35 of the Crofting Reform etc Act 2007 will enable community bodies to purchase any lease with a commercial value over croft land that they wish to purchase under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The provisions of the 2007 act will come into effect in June—I recently announced that crofters will be able to take advantage of the provisions from June. The two acts will work together from that point.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I return to the issue of access. There appeared to be difficulties with the definition of "curtilage" in relation to access. I was among the majority who agreed that "curtilage" should not be defined in the act. In the light of the legal actions that have been taken, is it time for us to reconsider the difficulties that might arise as a result of the lack of a formal legal definition of that word?

Sarah Boyack: As I said, we intend to carry out a wide review of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 in 2007. I do not want to comment on any court cases. If members who were on the committee that examined the 2003 act have specific concerns—I know, from questions that Pauline McNeill has asked me, that concerns exist—we would be keen to hear from them.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab): Does the minister agree that the Scottish outdoor access code was intended to be a guide to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 for all matters within that act and that it was not meant to deal with responsible access only, but was meant to deal with what land was accessible? Does she further agree that the spirit of the act was to provide no less access than was previously enjoyed and that there is a danger that Parliament's will when it passed the 2003 act, which was to give wide access, might be undermined by some local authorities and court decisions? Can the minister reassure me that, when the act was passed, it was compliant with the European convention on human rights and that it is still compliant? If she has any concerns about the act not being compliant, will she advise members of that?

Sarah Boyack: The Executive certainly has no concern about the 2003 act not being compliant with the European convention on human rights.

I would be concerned if Pauline McNeill took the view that we are getting less access. That was absolutely not the intention of the act. Again, I say to members that we will review the issue during 2007. It is difficult to discuss this in the chamber, although I know that the bill was debated line by line in detail by the committee. A review is the proper way of assessing the issues.

If members have concerns in the meantime, it would be appropriate for them to contact ministers.

(S2O-11951) Railways

2007-02-08T14:35:00.001Z

5. Christine May (Central Fife) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to increase the use of rail for passenger and freight traffic. (S2O-11951)

The Minister for Transport (Tavish Scott): We have recently published our rail policy document "Scotland's Railways" as part of the national transport strategy. The document examines the options for building on the improvements that we have already made to rail services to encourage more people to make the shift from private car to the train and to encourage many more businesses to shift from transporting goods by lorry to moving them by train.

Christine May: The minister may be familiar with some of the products of Diageo, which employs 800 people in my constituency, at Cameron Bridge and Leven. Is he aware that Diageo's recent proposal to consider the viability of reopening the Thornton to Methil rail link to bring goods into and export goods from its plants would result in a significant reduction in road miles and in congestion on the Forth road bridge? Will he ask his officials to brief him on the proposal and on how that might link into the reopening of the passenger line to Levenmouth?

Tavish Scott: I have some understanding of Diageo's products, but I will say no more than that.
I take seriously Christine May's point about the company's desire to move more products by rail. It would be welcome if it made that project happen and expanded the use of rail in place of lorry miles. I assure her that I will ask officials to examine the project closely to see whether our freight facilities grant mechanisms could provide assistance, if that is appropriate to the development of the project. We will examine closely what assistance we can provide.

John Scott (Ayr) (Con): As the minister will be aware, there are increasing levels of passenger and freight traffic on the Ayr to Glasgow line and of coal traffic on the line from Hunterston. What plans does he have for those lines in light of the passing of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill, given that GARL will remove freight traffic from the lines in Ayrshire?

Tavish Scott: I will be happy to provide John Scott with further detail on Transport Scotland's current plans for the area. On the development of the part of the rail network to which he referred, he is right to point out that significant advantages will flow from GARL. We hope that GARL will allow better optimisation of the rail track both for passengers and for freight. I will be happy to discuss that further with him.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): In the modern world, where much freight is multimodal, connecting rail freight and sea freight is a paramount part of the solution. Is the minister aware of discussions that are taking place to establish a highway of the sea linking Iceland, Shetland, Peterhead and Rosyth? What steps will he take to ensure that appropriate rail links are in place to maximise the benefits of such a development if it goes ahead?

Tavish Scott: Stewart Stevenson makes a good point. I believe that last Friday's highways of the sea conference in Kirkwall—which, unfortunately, I could not attend—was useful in developing some of the practicalities behind that project. He also makes a good point about the need to develop railheads at ports. The ports sector perhaps does not always get enough attention in general transport policy, given what we could achieve with our ports and given how important they are in developing the Scottish economy. We need to ensure that ports are used for business development, especially exports, by ensuring that they provide linkages to both the road and rail networks. I look forward to further development of the highway of the sea project not just for sea freight but potentially—dare I say it—for Arctic oil. One proposal that emerged from the earlier consideration was that Arctic oil could be transhipped in the northern isles, where there is a lot of expertise, as it has been done for the past 30 years or so.

(S2O-11478) Scottish Criminal Record Office Fingerprint Experts

2006-12-14T14:55:00.001Z

2. Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to ensure that fingerprint experts at the Scottish Criminal Record Office will be treated in a fair manner when the organisation becomes part of the Scottish forensic science service in April 2007. (S2O-11478)

The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson): We expect all public servants to be treated fairly. That is the responsibility of their managers and employers. In this case, the Scottish police services authority will be responsible for the Scottish fingerprint service from April 2007.

Mr Macintosh: Does the minister accept that it was her former Cabinet colleague, the previous Lord Advocate, who decided that four fingerprint officers should not be returned to the expert witness list? That decision, I may add, was taken publicly, at a meeting, with the four officers sitting behind the Lord Advocate but without their being given advance notice of the decision. Does she accept that the person whom she appointed as the interim chief executive of the new service has made it clear to six SCRO officers that they have no future in the service despite their long and unblemished record in the SCRO and the fact that their professionalism was upheld by successive inquiries? Does she believe that those Executive decisions have had no effect on the welfare or future well-being of the SCRO officers and that the Executive has no responsibility to ensure that fair play exists in public services?

Cathy Jamieson: It is important to clarify that the Executive works on the policy direction—it will ensure that the SPSA is set up properly and is able to take over the Scottish fingerprint service—but that it is for the Lord Advocate to decide who is used in the courts as an expert witness.

I have been at pains to stress—and I stress it again today—that there is a process that involves the employers, the trade unions and the individuals concerned. I do not believe that it would be right and proper to discuss the detail of that in the chamber while the negotiations are continuing. However, I stress the important point that everyone has employment rights that must be upheld. I expect that to happen whoever the employer is, and in this case I certainly expect the fingerprint service to look at that.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): There should be increased confidence in the future of the service now that Mr Mulhern is in charge of it. Does the minister agree that the challenges for the service include ensuring that future employees have the opportunity to learn from the experience of other bureaux; that employees have adequate management support in doing the job that they have to do; and that we do not return to the position in which members of staff are hung out to dry by wholly inadequate management?

Cathy Jamieson: I know that the member is familiar with "The Scottish Fingerprint Service Action Plan for Excellence". That plan will require a number of actions to be taken. It will ensure that the appropriate professional development is provided and that management systems are appropriate and fit for the job that people are required to do. I look forward with interest to any comments or recommendations that the committee that has been considering the issue will make in due course.

(S2O-11074) Road Fatalities

2006-11-16T12:00:00.001Z

7. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what proportion of road fatalities in rural Scotland in the past two years took place between sunset and sunrise. (S2O-11074)

The Minister for Transport (Tavish Scott): In 2004 and 2005, 166 fatalities out of a total of 418—that is, 40 per cent of deaths—due to accidents on non-built-up roads were reported as having occurred in darkness.

Stewart Stevenson: I thank the minister for his answer and for his comments in response to Gordon Jackson's question. Is he aware that the overwhelming majority of recent fatalities in the Grampian police area have occurred as a result of accidents at night and that the police said that driver skill—or lack of it—was a significant factor in all but one case? Will he therefore consider promoting more strongly, and giving financial support to, the pass plus scheme, which provides training on driving at night?

Tavish Scott: I acknowledge the points that Stewart Stevenson made. I am well aware of the circumstances and of the police analysis of the causes of the accidents that he mentioned. I will certainly look again at the pass plus scheme. The member knows that most of the resources that we channel into the area are channelled through Road Safety Scotland's programme, which is proven to have lasting benefits. However, I am happy to consider alternative or additional approaches that could demonstrably assist in the prevention of tragic accidents.

(S2F-2519) Methadone Programme

2006-11-02T12:30:00.001Z

4. Mr Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab): To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will review the operation of the methadone programme. (S2F-2519)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): The Scottish Executive is reviewing the place of methadone in drug treatment programmes and we expect a report by the end of the year. The report will include new information from health boards about the level of use and how it is monitored. All treatment and rehabilitation programmes should help people to be free from drugs and to live productive and fulfilling lives with the support that they need.

Mr McNeil: It is certainly time for a review. Given the latest research by Professor Neil McKeganey, which finds that the methadone programme helps fewer than 4 per cent of addicts to kick their habit, does the First Minister agree that we need to review the methadone programme and drug treatment services in general and to ask hard questions about both? Is it not time to replace the open-ended and one-sided commitment that the taxpayer makes to addicts with some form of social contract with a clear programme for drug cessation? Would that challenge the prevailing view that drug treatment services are merely about stabilising addicts? Would it spell out our ambition to move addicts on, not to another form of dependence, but to a drug-free life?

The First Minister: It is important to record the progress that has been made. In recent times, the number of residential services that treat people who have problems with drugs or alcohol has increased by 50 per cent. In 2004-05, we had 33 services, which was up from 22 just three years before; and we had 4,000 admissions to those services, up from just over 1,000. The number of residential beds has doubled from 244 to almost 500. The number of places and the number of times that those residential services are used have been a priority, have increased and are making a difference.

I met Professor McKeganey earlier this week to discuss his research and to learn about how residential services seem to be much more effective in producing drug-free lives for people who are on those programmes. We believe absolutely that everybody who is on a programme should have an end point in sight and should agree to move from a drug-dependent lifestyle to a drug-free lifestyle. That is why the review is taking place. The Minister for Justice will report to the Parliament on the review when we have received the report and analysed its conclusions. I hope that, throughout Scotland, we can move not only to a drug treatment system in which there are more residential places, but in which people who are on drug treatment programmes—even in the community—move quickly and directly away from drug dependency and towards drug-free lifestyles.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I welcome the fact that the Executive has commissioned a report. Its publication will be a helpful contribution to the debate. If only all Executive reports were published.
It has been revealed that England is 10 times more successful than Scotland in treating people on methadone. Will the review that is under way reveal why that is so? The First Minister said that he wants there to be more residential places. Will the review reveal why the existing residential places are not being used?

The First Minister: Stewart Stevenson knows that decisions about who should be placed in residential places are primarily for clinicians and local agencies. A key task is ensuring that local agencies use those places more regularly.

An issue that is raised by the treatment of drug addicts in Scotland is the apparent inconsistency in the approaches of local authorities and health agencies at the local level and of individual practices and treatment programmes. Getting greater consistency throughout Scotland in the treatment of individuals is an issue. Every individual needs an individual programme, but agencies, medical practices and drug programmes should be more consistent and have the clear objective in sight of encouraging people to have a drug-free lifestyle. They should aim to use the residential places in which we have invested a lot of money.

Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con): It is almost a year since the tragic death of Derek Doran from a methadone overdose. Derek was two years old. When will the review of guidelines to pharmacists that are issued by NHS Education for Scotland on aspects of methadone prescribing—which were promised for autumn 2006—be published? Are any new measures being implemented, such as a re-evaluation of the assessment criteria that allow addicts to take home three days' worth of prescribed methadone, to ensure that such a terrible accident never happens again?

The First Minister: The review is work in progress. I am certain that I can tell Margaret Mitchell in writing when she can expect the new guidelines to be published. I am also certain that, as part of the review of programmes that I referred to in my first answer on the topic, the guidance that is given and the consistency of the distribution of methadone will be considered.

I think that every member—indeed, everybody in Scotland—was shocked by the death of Derek Doran. We do not know how many families come close to such things happening and are lucky that they have not happened. We need to be clear about what should happen and there needs to consistency throughout Scotland. There should be clear guidelines for people who are responsible for prescribing methadone and on the safety measures that should be in place for families so that children are not put in danger.

(S2F-2500) Prisoners (Home Leave)

2006-10-26T12:30:00.001+01:00

4. Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab): To ask the First Minister what guarantees can be given that public safety will not be compromised by the proposed home leave for inmates of open prisons at Christmas. (S2F-2500)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): All prisoners in open prisons must have been assessed as presenting a low risk to the public before being transferred there. Almost all will have some entitlement to home leave throughout the year as part of their rehabilitation programme. However, no one will be allowed home leave without a rigorous safety assessment.

Marlyn Glen: I thank the First Minister for his reassurance. Does he agree that all political parties should be consistent in supporting that policy, instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to misleading press reports?

The First Minister: I agree absolutely. There are members who claim to support systems for rehabilitation but who are quick to criticise them as soon as there is an opportunity to get themselves in the headlines. I would hope that all members would desist from such practices.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I am sure that the First Minister agrees that one of the most important elements of rehabilitation that the prison service can deliver relates to drug abuse, which takes the majority of prisoners into prison.

The Presiding Officer: Is this a question about home leave, Mr Stevenson?

Stewart Stevenson: In that context, in relation to open prisons, does the First Minister support my view that prisoners who are being released for home leave should be tested for drug abuse before they leave and after they return, to ensure continuity of rehabilitation from drug abuse?

The First Minister: If we were to implement the Scottish National Party's policy on prisons, that would be difficult to achieve. The SNP published its policy proposals, entitled "Our policies for a safer Scotland", in which it says clearly that it would introduce new sentencing options, including weekend prisons. For Mr MacAskill, who is Mr Stevenson's boss, to say last week that society has deemed that those people should be punished but that they are not being punished over the festive period because a limited number of prisoners are being allowed home, when, in fact, the SNP wants many more prisoners to be allowed home every single week of the year, is sheer hypocrisy. The Scottish National Party's policies would have more credibility if it was consistent and did not jump from having one policy statement in its policy document to grabbing headlines on another occasion.

Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): Does the First Minister agree that the home leave system is an important part of rehabilitation services, but that there are flaws with regard to services that begin in prison—open prisons in particular—but do not carry on in the community? Will he develop the proposal to establish in the community setting the equivalent of link centres in prisons, which are designed to co-ordinate and ensure that rehabilitation services are properly administered, given that there is currently a gap in such services in the community?

The First Minister: I understand that that matter is being considered by justice services and I am sure that the Minister for Justice would be happy to provide details as discussions progress and reach conclusions.

(S2O-10704) Drug Rehabilitation (North-east Scotland)

2006-09-28T14:35:00.001+01:00

8. Mrs Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive what the average waits are for drug rehabilitation and to enter a methadone programme in north-east Scotland. (S2O-10704)

The Deputy Minister for Justice (Hugh Henry): Average waiting times are not regarded as a particularly effective measure of the accessibility of drug treatment services. However, the most recent figures from the waiting times framework show that, in the north-east, more than 80 per cent of clients entered prescribed drug treatment within 14 days of being considered ready for that intervention. The figures for rehabilitation show that 79 per cent of those who entered rehabilitation did so within 14 days.

Mrs Milne: That is perhaps progress, but not enough. What action is being taken to improve the figures? Will the minister give a commitment to introduce an easily accessible online central directory of rehabilitation places like the one that is in use south of the border?

Hugh Henry: I suppose that grudging praise from the Tories is better than no praise at all. I am pleased that, despite her mean words, Nanette Milne admits that progress is being made. However, we have much more to do.

The issue of the central register has been raised on several occasions, and answers have been given on it. We are seeking to get as much information as we can about the facilities that are available throughout Scotland. Nonetheless, a much broader range of initiatives is required. We are trying to get behind the figures, and we need to ensure that there is better integration of services. Yesterday, along with Lewis Macdonald, I launched an initiative on improvements in quality standards. Better integration and understanding of services, better communication and better information all have a part to play.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I know that the minister shares my deep concern about drug problems in Scotland. Will he give further consideration to ensuring that residential places that draw people out of addiction in the long term—methadone is generally merely a method of parking the problem—are stepped up as a key part of the strategy? Will he ensure that places are not left vacant in too many parts of Scotland, given that, according to Professor Neil McKeganey, more than half of addicts want to get off drugs rather than go through harm reduction?

Hugh Henry: Stewart Stevenson has raised a more complex issue. In fact, in suggesting that we expand the number of places while at the same time pointing out that some of the existing places are lying vacant, he has highlighted one of the contradictions at the heart of the matter. One problem is that the decision about when to send an addict to residential rehabilitation must lie with the professionals who are responsible for that individual. They assess the person's needs at the time and decide on the most appropriate course of action.

We must ensure that when someone is offered the opportunity of residential rehabilitation not only are they ready for it but the support facilities are available when they come back out. Some of the stories that my officials have heard on this matter are heartbreaking. For example, one individual had been in residential rehabilitation seven times, which clearly indicates that, in their case, it had failed. Indeed, it is a very expensive failure, and that use of resources probably means that other people were denied the opportunity of treatment. I have even spoken to people in Stewart Stevenson's constituency who have been in residential rehabilitation two or three times. It is clear that other aspects of this very complex problem need to be taken into consideration.

(S2F-2459) Scottish Prison Service (Budget)

2006-09-28T12:30:00.001+01:00

5. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Prison Service's budget represents good value for money. (S2F-2459)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): The budget allows the Scottish Prison Service to meet its performance targets and to invest some £1.5 million each week on the modernisation of the prison estate. The Prison Service also contributes to the Executive's efficient government programme and the cost per prisoner place has fallen from more than £32,000 in 2003-04 to just over £30,000 in 2005-06.

Stewart Stevenson: I welcome the slopping-out claims settlement offer that has recently been made, which will reduce the £80 million provision in the budget to a mere £40 million, which represents some 15 per cent of the operational budget.

I remind the First Minister that this disgraceful situation sprang from the £13.5 million budget cut that was made on 21 October 1999. When the convener of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee asked whether the cut would delay an end to slopping out, she was told by Jim Wallace:

"It is one of the results."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 14 December 1999; c 518.]

In Monday's edition of The Herald, Jim Wallace said:

"I cannot recall being advised ... that this ... would jeopardise the timetable for ending slopping out."
Was the Liberal minister wrong in 1999, was he wrong on Monday or was it the Minister for Finance—in other words, Jack McConnell—who was at the bottom of things?

The First Minister: I agreed with Jim Wallace when he said this week that that is a myth and that the position has been completely misrepresented since that time. The reality of course is that a positive choice was made back then to ensure that the money that was in the budget was spent on tackling drugs and drug crime in Scotland. The result of that is record levels of drug seizures; record numbers of drug criminals caught; more criminals having the proceeds of their crimes taken from them and reinvested in the community; and a drug enforcement agency that is the admiration of the rest of Britain. That is the proud record of the devolved Government. The Scottish National Party might have disagreed with the choice, but it was wrong and we were right.
Categories [Justice]

(S2O-10506) Oral Question - Central Heating Programme

2006-09-14T14:55:00.001+01:00

5. Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive how many homes in the FK postcode area and in Scotland have had central heating installed in each year since the introduction of the central heating programme; whether more detailed information and monitoring of the programme will be undertaken, and whether, now that the programme is to be administered by Scottish Gas, any additional safeguards are to be introduced to protect the public. (S2O-10506)

The Deputy Minister for Communities (Johann Lamont): Since 2001, the central heating programme has installed 1,600 systems in the FK postcode area as part of a total Scottish figure of over 51,000 installations. In the interests of brevity and, if the member is content, I shall write to her with the detailed breakdown of the number of installations in each year since 2001 and place a copy of that information in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

As regards the new managing agency contract, performance will be monitored independently with monthly reports to Communities Scotland. The contract also sets improved standards for the level of service provided to applicants.

Cathy Peattie: I would welcome that written report. Will the minister tell me how many applicants will be prioritised to ensure that the greatest need is met first? We know that there is a long waiting list for the service. Will the minister assure me that assessments will cover all needs, and that people will not be subjected to demands for additional money before the work starts, as happened to one of my elderly constituents who was asked for £150 upfront because the contractor felt that she needed another radiator?

Johann Lamont: We should welcome the central heating programme as a good news story; £62.5 million is being spent from October 2006 to March 2008. It is a good example of the partnership working between a Labour Government and a Labour-led Scottish Executive that is committed to addressing fuel poverty.
There have been challenges as the programme has progressed. Written into the contract with Scottish Gas is an expectation of improvement in customer care. We are mindful of that and have drilled into its importance with the support of members from across the chamber who have raised the challenges experienced by vulnerable people. The purpose of the programme is to protect vulnerable people. That is the challenge to Scottish Gas, and I am confident that our targets will be met.

We are looking at targeting those with greater needs but, by definition, the whole group at whom the initiative is aimed is vulnerable. We must be careful that we do not prioritise inappropriately, as we recognise that the group as a whole is in great need.

John Scott (Ayr) (Con): The minister will be aware that funding has not been available to the central heating programme since the spring. Can she assure the chamber that sufficient funding is now in place to allow Scottish Gas to deal with the backlog and waiting lists that have built up since the spring, especially in my constituency, to allow those who are eligible for the scheme to have new central heating systems in place before the winter sets in?

Johann Lamont: It is entirely reasonable that we should seek to get the best benefit from the huge investment that has been made in the programme. There was not no money from March this year. A target was given to Eaga Group for 6,000 central heating systems to be installed, and the new managing agent is charged with the responsibility of installing an equivalent number in the next period. There has been no break, although we recognise that there is a backlog. We reckon that, when we go into the assessment, that will reduce by 30 per cent. We are on target to meet the overall target that we have set for the year. There have been some challenges in the interim, and we are addressing those. We want to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from this significant investment for the people who need it most.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): The minister will be aware that, even at the current high prices, gas is one of the most cost-effective fuels with which people can heat their homes. In the light of the appointment of Scottish Gas as the managing agent, has the Executive encouraged that company to supply gas to the many rural towns and villages that currently have no access to it even though, in my constituency, they are within a few hundred metres of gas mains?

Johann Lamont: The contract that we have with Scottish Gas is to deliver our highly popular, hugely invested-in programme. We know what the challenges are around that, and those are issues that Stewart Stevenson can address with Scottish Gas. The core business between Scottish Gas and the Executive is the central heating programme, not addressing the other issues that exist. It is critical that Scottish Gas takes on the responsibility of delivering that huge benefit to people throughout Scotland.

John Swinburne (Central Scotland) (SSCUP): Is the minister aware that there has not been a smooth handover from Eaga Group to Scottish Gas and that the Executive's excellent free central heating scheme has been held back? If a person needs a repair, they are told to wait six months. Six months from now, they could be a statistic in the figures for winter-related deaths.

Johann Lamont: Let me make it clear that the purpose of the programme is to improve the central heating infrastructure of people's homes; it is not intended to be a substitute for measures to assist people in crisis with specific heating needs. Those problems are not addressed through the programme. It is a general programme, and members across the Parliament agreed that it should be a general programme rather than a targeted one, given the needs of the people whom we are talking about.

We have charged the managing agent to consider the particular issues of people with health needs to determine whether there are ways in which the programme can be accelerated. However, as I have said, there are challenges in that, given the nature of the group that we are discussing. We recognised that the transition would cause some problems, but we will meet our overall target as we have met it in the past. Indeed, in the past year, we overreached our target by 1,000 installations, with 14,000 systems installed. That is clearly a good news story despite the challenges that individual constituents face.

Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab): I agree that it is a great programme. An awful lot of people in my constituency have benefited from it.

I am pleased that the Executive has taken on board some of the management issues that members have raised in the past. I visited a constituent earlier this week, and I was appalled to see the state of the central heating system that a company had installed. Can the minister assure me that, under the new contract, the managing agent will inspect work before it pays the contractors?

Johann Lamont: There is an inspection regime. People in my constituency have raised with me their experiences of central heating installations, which have not been what we would expect. We have to challenge that. The fact that the programme is free to the person who receives the system does not mean that it is free. It is an active political decision by the Executive to deliver funds to the programme, and those who install the systems should show those customers the same respect that they would show anyone else.

The fact is that the programme has given a boost not only to elderly people, but to the people who run businesses installing central heating. They should take this opportunity with both hands and prove that they can carry out quality work. I am glad that many have done so; however, I feel that individuals should not have to suffer the disappointment that Cathie Craigie has described. The critical point is that this is a good programme for individuals and the challenge for those who get the opportunity to carry out such work is to prove that they can deliver work of the highest quality.

(S2O-10465) Bail Supervision

2006-09-07T14:55:00.001+01:00

1. John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive whether there are any plans to extend bail supervision throughout Scotland. (S2O-10465)

The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson): All local authorities are provided with Executive funding for bail information and supervision schemes. In order to improve the way in which such schemes work, we will undertake a short review of those who do not currently provide a full bail supervision service. That will be completed by the end of the year.

John Farquhar Munro: The minister will agree that bail supervision could play an increasingly valid role in providing courts with a robust and cost-effective alternative to remand, as well as reducing overcrowding in our prisons. Will the minister consider increasing the use of bail supervision throughout Scotland, in particular for those who are accused of minor offences?

Cathy Jamieson: It is important that we have a range of options. In the interests of public safety, it is important that some people who have committed serious offences are remanded. However, we have increased the funding that is available to local authorities for the provision of bail information and supervision schemes from just over £300,000 in 1999—when the schemes were first piloted—to around £1.1 million in this financial year. It is important that we look at how those schemes are working.

I want to ensure that we have a range of options in place. Of course, bail can never completely replace custody. As I have mentioned, there are some instances in which remand is necessary. Nonetheless, it is important that we consider how such schemes operate and that we have them in place across Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): In advance of next week's debate on the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, will the minister tell us whether she is minded to ensure that people who breach bail are seen to be punished for breach of bail? She will recognise that there is widespread public concern about the current operation of the bail system.

Cathy Jamieson: It is important that anyone who is subject to bail conditions—whether the standard conditions or specific conditions that have been imposed by a court—recognises that they have been put in a position of trust by the court. They have a responsibility to stick to the conditions of the scheme. It is for the courts to decide what such conditions are and what would be an appropriate action to be taken if there was breach of bail. However, I am on record on several occasions as supporting strongly the notion that we cannot increase confidence in our justice system if people feel that they can break bail and flout the conditions of the court because nothing will happen to them. It is, nonetheless, for the court to make those decisions.

(S2F-2342) Scottish Criminal Record Office Inquiry

2006-06-08T12:00:00.001+01:00

5. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive will take to give effect to motions S2M-4485 and S2M-4486, agreed without dissent by the Justice 1 Committee on 1 June 2006. (S2F-2342)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): Motion S2M-4485 concerns a report that was provided as part of a criminal investigation; as such, it is a matter for the Lord Advocate. Motion S2M-4486 is being considered by the Minister for Justice. We will try to find a way forward that will assist the committee while preserving the important legal principles that the Minister for Justice has previously set out.

Stewart Stevenson: I hope that the First Minister will accept that there is common cause to reinstate confidence in the fingerprint system in Scotland—which, of course, is why the motions were passed by a unanimous vote in the committee.

The First Minister mentioned the Lord Advocate. The report that is being sought is, in essence, in the public domain, but the detail behind it is not yet in the public domain. It would be of very great assistance if the First Minister could assure us that further efforts will be made. I hope that the First Minister is able to assure Parliament—and I invite him to do so—that the discussions that are currently taking place with the Minister for Justice will be rapidly concluded. The investigation by the committee is well under way and we have little time left.

The First Minister: In some of the sessions of the Justice 1 Committee this week, we have seen the difficulties in this case and the difficulties in ensuring that a conclusion can be reached that will help to rebuild confidence in the justice system—not only in the fingerprint service but in other aspects of the system too. I absolutely agree with Stewart Stevenson if he is genuine about seeking common cause to restore that confidence. I welcome that indication and I hope that in the work and in the conclusions of the committee, we will see that that objective is clear.

It is my sincere belief that matters relating to reports commissioned by the prosecution in Scotland are not matters for politicians and I hope that the committee will take that into account. I believe that such matters are matters for the Lord Advocate, which need to be handled properly to ensure that our legal system is not put in a difficult position in the future by any precedents that would be set.

In relation to matters that affect the Executive and reports commissioned by us for legal advice in advance of cases in which we are defending the public interest, there are important issues to be considered. The Minister for Justice is happy to discuss those issues in detail with representatives of the Justice 1 Committee. A meeting has already taken place between the convener of the committee and the Minister for Justice. I understand that this week's meeting was a helpful initial attempt at finding a way forward. We are determined to assist the committee as much as we can.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab): The First Minister has alluded to the meeting that I had with the Minister for Justice this week at which, as the committee's representative, I set out the case for the committee to have access to both MacLeod reports and the Mike Pass report.

Does the First Minister acknowledge the cross-party efforts that the Justice 1 Committee has made to give an extremely important issue a public airing? Does he accept assurances from me as the committee's convener that we have no desire either to override the important issues that must be taken into account when the release of the reports in question is considered or to set a precedent? Does he agree that it is in the interest of the public and of the Parliament to ensure that we obtain all the information that is relevant to our important inquiry into the McKie case and the Scottish fingerprint service, so that we can make our findings?

The First Minister: It is important that the information that is made available, the advice that we give and the assistance that we provide help the committee to conduct itself in a way that is helpful to ensuring that we restore confidence in the fingerprint service and the system as a whole. I welcome the fact that committee members from different parties have indicated that that is their objective. I simply counsel that there are important principles to do with the independence of the prosecution from politicians that the committee needs to heed in the work that it undertakes.

I believe that the committee has done a good job so far. It will be important for it to take further evidence—I understand that that is its intention. I hope that we can reach a conclusion on the issue speedily and that we can ensure that the committee's recommendations and the actions of ministers work together to ensure that people in Scotland can have faith in the system and can believe that, in spite of the disagreements that may exist among experts about individual fingerprints or anything else, the system as a whole is robust and that the principles of the Scottish legal system will be maintained.

(S2F-2202) Honours (Recommendations)

2006-03-23T12:00:00.001Z

5. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister how many recommendations for honours have been made by the Scottish Executive since 2003. (S2F-2202)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): One thousand seven hundred and forty-six names have been recommended to be considered for the biannual honours lists since 2003.

Stewart Stevenson: Is the First Minister aware of a written answer that was given to me by Mr Tom McCabe in answer to a question about the honours recommendations process? It states:

"Details of this process are confidential."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 29 July 2005; S2W-17373.]

The First Minister talked about the job of politicians. Is it not the case that a key part of politicians' jobs in this Parliament is to be open and accountable to the people of Scotland? Is it time for the First Minister to retract the statement by Tom McCabe and to change the Executive's approach to the honours system?

The First Minister: Not at all. I can think of few things that would be more foolish in relation to the honours system. The vast majority of the 1,746 people who were put forward for honours were nominated by others in their local community. They were not all successful, because of the balance that is struck in the list between different backgrounds, geographical areas, interests and types of voluntary organisation. It would be entirely wrong for us to remove confidentiality from the process, because of the embarrassment that might be caused to those who were not successful.

Stewart Stevenson: Ah—the embarrassment.

The First Minister: Mr Stevenson shouts about the issue, but a school cleaner who is nominated without their knowledge for a national honour but does not make it on to the list on that occasion does not want to be the subject of a national media story. It was not their choice to be nominated and it would be foolish to put them in that position.

The 1,746 names to which I referred included names of people whom I approved for nomination, who were successful in the national system for determining honours but who chose for a reason not to accept the honour. We should not embarrass those who want to do that confidentially. There is a very good reason for the names being confidential. People do not want to be embarrassed in the way that I have described. Mr Stevenson should rethink his attitude to the issue, which is very wrong.

(S2F-2103) Drug Use (Children)

2006-02-02T12:00:00.001Z

5. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive has undertaken in response to the findings published in 2003 by Professor McKeganey, which examined the extent of drug use and exposure in 10 to 12-year-olds. (S2F-2103)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): I have every sympathy with Stewart Stevenson. He has a record of raising these issues and today he has had to follow on from earlier questions. I acknowledge the particular problem in his constituency and his interest in the issues. I hope that we can continue to work together on them.

As I said earlier, we are taking action on a number of fronts. We are ensuring that there is drugs education available in all schools; a national public information campaign; early intervention and diversionary programmes for youngsters and families; and improved treatment for those with acute problems.

Stewart Stevenson: I take the opportunity of saying that the First Minister will have a faithful friend for any sensible initiatives to which we can all sign up. However, the signs are not encouraging. I have been asking questions for around three months about what we know of these issues. The First Minister will know that Professor McKeganey's report was commissioned not in Scotland but by the Home Office—it was not a Scottish report.

In written answers on 3 November and 18 November, I was told that we do not know the size of the drugs trade and that we do not work with the Home Office. We do not have a report such as the one produced annually in London that gives information on the size of the drugs trade south of the border, on how many people are using different drugs, and on what the impact of those drugs is. Is it not time that we had quality research into factual ways of determining policy in Scotland—research that is at least as good as what is available south of the border?

The First Minister: It is vital that our approach covers all the different areas in which we must have an impact through policy, funding and the other decisions that we make. We do that not by reference to the Home Office but by reference to what is happening here in Scotland.

If Mr Stevenson indeed watches the matter carefully, he will see that in certain areas the Home Office and the United Kingdom Government are learning from what is happening in Scotland. That is good, and such an approach helps us because drug dealers do not exist in either Scotland or England but move across the border.

Aside from Professor McKeganey's report, the report entitled "Hidden Harm: Responding to the needs of children of problem drug users", on which an action plan will be published this spring, was also produced in 2003. We know from that report, and from the widespread consultations that are important if we want to bring together everyone who works in the drugs field, that we need to improve drugs education in every school in Scotland and that not only the police but—critically—our Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency must take certain educational and enforcement measures. Indeed, the Parliament will debate this afternoon the creation of an agency with wider powers, among other issues. Furthermore, we need to ensure that the money that we retrieve from dealers through convictions is reinvested in the community to tackle any damage that has been caused.

Evidence has shown that those actions must be taken, and the changes and adaptations in policy, the new laws that have been created and the new funding that has been allocated in recent years have all been based on that reality. We will continue to do those things and more.

(S2F-1838) Drug Dealers (Convictions)

2005-09-29T12:01:00.001+01:00

6. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister how many drug dealers were convicted in 2004. (S2F-1838)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): The latest available statistics are for 2003, when there were 1,639 convictions for illegal supply or trafficking of drugs in Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson: Is the First Minister aware that senior police officers now suggest that several families in Scotland have built up cumulative assets in excess of £100 million and that the overall turnover of the drugs industry in Scotland is in the range of £3 billion to £5 billion? That suggests that between 3 per cent and 5 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product is in the illegal drugs industry. Will the First Minister seek to retain for Scottish benefit all the moneys that are retrieved from drug dealing—which are currently capped at £17 million a year—rather than allowing them to be a tax on Scotland that is taken south?

The First Minister: Dear oh dear. I thought that "It's Scotland's oil" was a poor old slogan that the nationalists had dragged back from 30 years ago, but to start saying "It's Scotland's drugs" is going a bit too far.

The reality is that those of us who have to deal with such matters rather than simply come up with silly simplistic slogans and ideas are now catching drug dealers at a rate. I will give Mr Stevenson an example of that. In 2002, the number of crimes related to drug dealing that the police in Scotland recorded was 10,139. In 2003, that number had gone down to 8,807. In 2002, the number of convictions was 1,353, but in 2003 it had gone up to 1,639. I hope that Mr Stevenson will agree that we are being effective in reducing the number of recorded instances of such crimes and that we are being highly effective in convicting those who are responsible for them.

One of the reasons for that is that we work in partnership with the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, our police forces and the many UK agencies—including HM Customs and Excise and the immigration authorities—that work closely with our drug enforcement agency. Those agencies have to be paid for from somewhere, so it is appropriate that we should share the proceeds and then join together to catch drug dealers. It is appropriate that, rather than getting involved in silly nationalist arguments about where the money is going or whose tax it is, we are effective at catching drug dealers in Scotland and getting drugs off Scotland's streets.

Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind): I wonder whether I could focus the First Minister's mind on the definition of "drug dealer". The figures that he gave in good faith mean very little. Many of the people who are convicted of dealing drugs are users, who are simply selling on drugs to feed their habits. Yesterday I chaired a conference on aspects of drugs policy. Many such aspects need to be considered afresh and we need new measurements of success—if we can classify it as that—and an assessment of which methods and policies have been failing. I speak as someone who was chairman of the Scottish Drugs Forum nearly 20 years ago and I can assure the First Minister that nothing has improved.

The First Minister: Unlike other party leaders, I welcome Margo MacDonald's right to express her opinion on such matters. However, in this case I do not agree with her. Since the establishment of the Parliament there has been the creation of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and the passage through the UK Parliament of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We have taken measures to work in partnership with other agencies to increase the number of convictions for drug dealing, and we have introduced drug treatment and testing orders in our courts.

We should ensure that we do not just tackle the people who are dealing, but that measures are put in place for addicts. Increased resources have been announced again this summer for drug rehabilitation across Scotland, which will help people to get off drugs, thereby reducing demand as well as supply. In all those different areas in Scotland today, far more is taking place far more effectively than was the case pre-devolution. Parliament has a good record so far, although it recognises that we still have a long way to go.

(S2F-1689) Identity Cards

2005-06-02T12:01:00.001+01:00

5. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister what discussions have taken place about the use of data originating from Scottish Executive departments and agencies in relation to the planned introduction of ID cards and biometric passports. (S2F-1689)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): We have maintained regular contact with the Home Office on the development of plans for identity cards, including provisions around the verification of information.

Stewart Stevenson: The First Minister will be aware of the serious and growing concern about the cost of the identity tax surrounding the proposals. Of equal concern is the important issue of whether data that are transferred from Scottish Executive sources will be treated in a secure way. Does the First Minister share my concern that the technical standards that will be used will allow any commercial organisation to retrieve data from a biometric passport or ID card, without the person even being aware that that is taking place?

The First Minister: Mr Stevenson puts a bit of a hole in his own argument by mentioning biometric passports. He has tried to make a political point about identity cards by making a technical point that goes far wider than the issue of identity cards. I will be happy to respond to him on that issue in due course.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): I draw the First Minister's attention to the identity tax that Stewart Stevenson touched on. According to the Home Office, the figure for the cost of an ID card has risen to £93 but, according to independent researchers, those costs will rise further, to up to £300. Does the First Minister agree that even those members of his party who are untroubled by the civil liberties implications of ID cards should be deeply troubled by the social justice impact that such a high cost will have on the poorest individuals in society?

The Presiding Officer: This is about the implications for devolved matters.

The First Minister: The Presiding Officer and members in the chamber will understand that the two parties in the Executive do not share a common view on the introduction of identity cards—

Stewart Stevenson: The First Minister is on his own.

The First Minister: No, Mr Stevenson. As First Minister, I believe in doing these things reasonably and fairly, so it would be inappropriate for me to defend the Government's scheme in detail today.

I will say that, in the debates that we have on such issues, it is important that we are accurate and that we refer to the costs accurately. Many of the costs relate to the introduction of biometric passports, rather than to identity cards, and it is wrong to distort the debate in a way that implies something other than that. If Mr Harvie wants to ask me about the implications for devolved matters of the UK Government's bill, I will be happy to address that issue. I am sure that Mr McCabe will address it in the statement that he is due to make to the Parliament.

(S2F-1584) G8 Summit (Impact on Edinburgh)

2005-04-21T12:00:00.001+01:00

5. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister what impact the G8 summit will have on access to public facilities in Edinburgh and what the effects of any restrictions may be. (S2F-1584)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): The plans for dealing with a large number of people in Edinburgh, as elsewhere, will be a matter for the chief constable in consultation with the local authorities and other relevant agencies. They will be based on the most up-to-date assessment of risks at that time. As ever, the chief constable will have our full support.

Stewart Stevenson: I thank the First Minister for his reply. Would he share my concern if people such as us in public life, and their facilities, were in light of an assessed threat to have protection that was denied to people elsewhere in Edinburgh, including commercial premises and ordinary individuals? Does he agree that we should make every effort to ensure that the Parliament building and other public buildings remain open for business as usual during the G8 summit?

The First Minister: The Presiding Officer would be the first to pick me up if I tried to interfere with his role or that of the parliamentary authorities in deciding the opening hours of the Parliament and the arrangements that apply in that regard.

I would not wish to see unnecessarily preferential treatment from the security services for anybody in our society. However, the chief constable and others must make a proper assessment of risk, not just to buildings but to people throughout Edinburgh as well as in the parliamentary complex. When they make that assessment, they must make the decisions that are required. I hope that the Parliament will follow their advice.

Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab): I wish to make the First Minister aware of the genuine concerns of local businesses, community representatives and shopkeepers in the area around the Parliament and throughout the city centre about the potential disruption to their lives and the potential damage to property that they read about in the newspapers on a regular basis. We have already had lessons in disruption to people's lives in this area, including, for example, to pensioners who were not able to access local services, and to bus services when Canongate is closed. Will the First Minister meet me to discuss what we can do to reassure local people that their needs and concerns will be taken into account in the important planning that he has talked about being done by all the authorities? We need to ensure not only that the agencies talk to each other, but that local people also know what is happening.

The First Minister: I want to reassure the people of Edinburgh that the agencies are not only now talking to each other but have been for some considerable time. A considerable amount of planning, not all of which can be made public, is going into ensuring that security in Edinburgh is as strong as it can be around the dates of the summit.

I would be happy to arrange for the Minister for Justice to talk to Sarah Boyack about those plans in more detail than can currently be provided. However, I make it clear that Scotland has one of the best-trained, most highly skilled police forces in the world. On this occasion, we have the benefit of operating jointly with the British security forces. We are well prepared for the summit. We cannot assess every possible outcome, but we can assess the level of risk and are doing so, partly so that we can also concentrate on exploiting the opportunities that the summit gives us. Those opportunities will deliver hundreds of millions of pounds of benefit to the Scottish economy now and in the future. We are preparing for the G8 summit in July by seizing the opportunities at the same time as we assess and deal with the risks.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con): Will the First Minister ensure that the police have the necessary back-up support, so that if offensive weapons are accumulated beforehand, as has happened at other summits, preventive action can and will be taken?

The First Minister: The police are planning for all eventualities and are working with others to ensure that they have the resources, facilities and back-up support that may be required to deal with whatever may transpire.

Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green): The First Minister has indicated his support for the police and local authorities. Does he agree that the City of Edinburgh Council should be supported financially to allow it to provide public facilities for those who, at the invitation of Gordon Brown, amongst others, are coming to Edinburgh to exercise their right to peaceful protest, and that the provision of proper public facilities is the best way of avoiding any confrontation in Edinburgh or across Scotland during the G8 summit?

The First Minister: Discussions are taking place on this issue at the moment. We have made it clear that, as well as providing additional finance for the police authorities in Scotland that will be most affected, we will ensure that additional finance is available for local authorities in Scotland that may be affected. The details of that finance must be negotiated—there is no blank cheque to any authority or other organisation. However, we will ensure that resources are provided and that Scotland is prepared.

(S2F-1272) Fresh Talent Initiative

2004-12-09T12:00:00.001Z

5. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister what contribution the fresh talent initiative is making to Scotland. (S2F-1272)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): Fresh talent is a long-term initiative that aims to retain more Scots in Scotland and to attract skilled people from the rest of the United Kingdom and from around the world to come and live and work in Scotland in order to address our population decline. However, I assure Stewart Stevenson that if anyone from London wishes to come and take the job of anybody in Scotland, the fresh talent initiative will not encourage them to do so.

Stewart Stevenson: I am sure that my nephews and nieces who work in England will be extremely grateful to hear that.

Is the First Minister confident that his scheme, which requires fresh talent coming from abroad to stay in Scotland, will deliver that result? When will it start delivering and with what net effect on the Scottish economy?

The First Minister: The fresh talent initiative, which we launched earlier this year, is already delivering. It has delivered a profile for Scotland and for this issue at home and abroad—indeed, it is attracting interest across the world. Our relocation advisory service, which went operational in October but which we have not yet formally marketed, has already—by virtue of being available and accessible through the fresh talent website—received more than 600 inquiries from many countries all over the world.

In fact, the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, who is just back from supporting Scotland's team at the Commonwealth youth games, managed to pick up a fresh talent leaflet in Bendigo, Victoria, during her travels in Australia. The promotion of Scotland is happening throughout the world. People are interested in coming to Scotland because we have some of the best universities and companies in the world. We also have a growing economy with the second-highest employment rate in the European Union. We have fantastic countryside in our national parks and elsewhere and fantastically vibrant cities. That is why Scotland is doing so well and why people want to come and live here.

Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South) (Lab): Does the First Minister believe that the initiative offers the unique opportunity to harness the language skills of native speakers so that Scotland can become a more competitive and dynamic economy? Will he take the opportunity during his meeting this afternoon with the chairman of the British Council, Neil Kinnock, to look at how the Executive could work in partnership with the British Council to progress the agenda to maximise language use and language learning in Scotland?

The First Minister: I hope that we can do that in partnership with the British Council, companies and education authorities. There are many good examples in Scotland, not least of which is the IBM call centre in Greenock, where languages are used for the good of our economy and to create jobs for individuals from Scotland and abroad.

We will continue to work in partnership with the British Council not only to attract great international conferences like the one that is taking place in Scotland this week, with delegates from 53 countries, but in our work abroad to promote Scotland and to help people elsewhere in the world who need to develop their education systems and skills.

(S2O-4049) Prisoner Programme Requests

2004-11-18T14:00:00.001Z

5. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what proportion of prisoner programme requests cannot be met due to resource constraints. (S2O-4049)

The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson): All prisoner programme requests require to be assessed for suitability on criteria such as level of need, motivation and whether an appropriate point in sentence has been reached. The Scottish Prison Service has advised me that no prisoner programme requests are currently being turned down due to resource constraints and, indeed, that there was a significant increase in sex offender programme places in 2003-04.

Stewart Stevenson: I welcome the implicit news that programmes are increasing in number. However, during a visit to Glenochil prison last week, I received very different information. Only the people with the greatest need and the people who could derive the greatest benefit were able to go on programmes. The majority of prisoners who applied were not able to do so. Will the minister investigate the difference between the information that I have and the answer that she has given and revert to me when she has done so?

Cathy Jamieson: I am always happy to provide further information to members. It is important to recognise that there may well be instances in which prisoners make requests to attend programmes but an assessment is made that the programme is not the correct one to meet their needs or that the timing, at that point in the sentence, is not the best for the prisoner.

The Executive has made available two new prisoner programmes. As I indicated, one programme deals with sex offenders—in particular, adult male prisoners whose sentences are of less than four years. That is a new programme, which was originally developed by Canadian psychologists. Earlier this year, the Scottish Prison Service introduced it into Peterhead, Edinburgh and Barlinnie prisons.

The Executive is also piloting a new violence-prevention programme of some 200 hours in length. The programme is designed for male prisoners for whom there is a high risk of violent reoffending. Again, it was developed by the Correctional Service of Canada and we have introduced it into the SPS.

Those two new programmes show the Executive's commitment to ensuring that the correct types of programme are in place to deal with serious and violent offenders. We will evaluate what works and ensure that that type of programme is rolled out in our prisons.

(S2F-949) Scottish Prison Service (Senior Management)

2004-06-24T12:00:00.001+01:00

5. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive has confidence in the senior management of the Scottish Prison Service. (S2F-949)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): Ministers expect a high level of performance to meet our objectives of public safety and reduced reoffending. I am confident that the Scottish Prison Service can meet its responsibilities in contribution to those objectives.

Stewart Stevenson: Does the First Minister think that a higher level of performance is needed? It is intolerable that the SPS management has sat for four years on a proposal to address slopping out at HMP Peterhead. Is the First Minister aware that, in 2002, Richard Simpson was told by the SPS that permission to visit a French prison could not be obtained while simultaneously I—an Opposition back bencher—obtained such permission, including permission for the then Deputy Minister for Justice to visit that French prison? Does the First Minister agree that it is entirely unacceptable that the head of the Scottish Prison Service could not answer entirely predictable questions from the justice committees in 2002 and is learning nothing in 2004? Is he aware that my concerns are shared across Parliament and that progress cannot be made in the prison service without effective management?

The First Minister: Over recent months, we have made it perfectly clear that we expect improvements in, for example, the handling of the prisoner escort services contract, which has been the subject of much debate in the chamber and elsewhere. Responsibility for those improvements lies with SPS management just as much as it does with the company concerned. That is also true for other areas.

I am determined that we will have the highest levels of performance in the management of all our agencies and departments, and the Scottish Prison Service should be no different from the others.

Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con): In relation to that prisoner escort contract, the First Minister will be aware that the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service recently confirmed to the Justice 2 Committee that the contract between Scottish ministers and Reliance was not signed off by Scottish ministers, who we now know knew nothing whatever about what was going on. The contract was signed off not even by the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, but by an anonymous and unknown director of finance within the Scottish Prison Service. Presumably, if she had been around, the Scottish Prison Service tea lady might have signed the contract. Is the First Minister satisfied that that is an acceptable and responsible discharge of Scottish ministerial responsibility?

The First Minister: As the Minister for Justice made clear at the committee, the arrangements for decisions on contracts are being reviewed by the Executive. That is happening in response to this incident and to other concerns that have been expressed by ministers and Parliament during recent years. It is entirely appropriate that we should do that. Circumstances that might have seemed to be appropriate when the Scottish Government was run by Whitehall might not necessarily be appropriate for the post-devolution period. The Parliament and Executive operate in a much more transparent and accountable way than ever existed before. That is one of the primary reasons why the relationships and involvement of ministers in the agreement of contracts, the knowledge about contractual decisions, the negotiations that have taken place and the implementation and monitoring of contracts have to be reviewed, and that is being done.

Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP): Mr Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, describes the SPS as

"an arm's length agency of the Scottish Executive".

Who is responsible—Tony Cameron or the First Minister—for the record numbers of prisoners in our overcrowded jails, for the fiasco that is the privatised prisoner escort service and, above all, for the wretched record on slopping out that has blackened Scotland's international name and record on human rights and which means that we might have to endure another decade of this procedure in our jails? Is it not the case that the First Minister's policy failures are at the root of the Scottish Prison Service's problems?

The First Minister: The management of the Scottish Prison Service is responsible for management and operational matters, but ministers are responsible for policy matters and the judiciary is responsible for sentencing. On Mr Fox's first point, the judiciary is responsible for the sentencing of those who become prisoners in our jails. Ministers are responsible for the prisoner escort contract, because we are determined to get more police officers out of the courtrooms, away from such duties and back out on the beat, working in communities. In relation to slopping out, past Governments of all colours in Scotland have to take some responsibility for where we are. It is worth recording that when the Conservative Government decided to end slopping out in England in the 1990s, and allocated the resources to do that, the Conservative Scottish Office did not do so. That is one of the reasons why we are where we are today.

Mr Keith Raffan (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD): Is the First Minister aware that certain parliamentary committees have not had a happy experience in dealing with the Scottish Prison Service? That was particularly the case when the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee in the previous parliamentary session, under the convenership of Ms Curran, undertook an inquiry into drug misuse and deprived communities. Will the First Minister ensure that the SPS is far more open and transparent in its dealings with parliamentarians?

Will the First Minister also ensure that drug treatment in prisons is stepped up? We need to learn far more about what prisons are up to, because such treatment is crucial in breaking the cycle of reoffending and in helping drug addicts into recovery.

The First Minister: I want to make it clear that I expect all Executive and agency officials who appear in front of parliamentary committees to be as helpful and informative as possible.

It is important that we have good and improving drug treatment facilities both in our prisons and in the community. Part of our problem is that, although drug treatment facilities in Scotland's prisons have improved, the improvements that have taken place in such facilities in the community have not happened fast enough to ensure that those who come out of prison and those who could perhaps avoid going to prison in the first place are able to receive treatment in the community and thereby avoid entering a cycle of crime and reoffending. Improving that must be our objective and we hope to make further announcements on that soon.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): As a member of the Justice 2 Committee, I, too, have had an interesting experience with the Scottish Prison Service. In the light of that, does the First Minister agree that the framework document covering the relationship between the Scottish Prison Service and the Executive needs to be the subject of a fundamental review, which must go beyond contractual arrangements and consider wider governance issues?

The First Minister: I am interested to hear that Jackie Baillie has had an interesting experience with the Scottish Prison Service—I hope that she was not detained for too long.

The framework document will be reviewed within the next 12 months. Parliament will be kept informed of progress.

(S2F-736) White-fish Industry

2004-03-18T12:00:00.001Z

5. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister when changes in the regulation of the white-fish industry will be announced. (S2F-736)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): I expect to see a formal Commission proposal amending December's total allowable catch and quota regulations later this month. It will give effect to the delayed agreement with Norway on certain quotas, on the haddock management changes that we have requested and on possible changes to the effort control regime.

Stewart Stevenson: Is the First Minister aware that many fishermen with quotas in the main haddock grounds have, because of the current bizarre system, exhausted those quotas in the three months that have passed, in the face of a 30-year high in the stocks of haddock? I welcome the news that Allan Wilson will travel to Europe to engage directly on our behalf in an attempt to change the rules. However, what happens until we get a revision? Currently, men are tied up against the wall. Do those who are going to sea have to keep dumping good haddocks and scarce cod, which the regulations were meant to protect? Fishermen are forced to dump their future over the side. When will we hear, what will we hear and what happens meantime?

The First Minister: What members will hear from us is that we are making a continued effort, at the European level and elsewhere, to secure the changes that are important to improving not only the viability and sustainability of the individual fishing boats in Scotland, but the sustainability of stocks in the North sea.

The changes that we have sought to secure—with good co-operation from the industry, I have to say—are important for the coming year and will have an impact, if we can get agreement. However, the other side of the matter is the responsibility that is on the individual fishing boats. It is important that people in the industry take the regime seriously and, for example, use the permits that are available. There must be a two-pronged effort. First, the Government must make the effort to secure the changes that are required for the coming year and, secondly, those in the industry must take their responsibilities seriously, use the permits and ensure that they are not put in the position that Stewart Stevenson has outlined.

Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): Does the First Minister accept the findings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh's inquiry into the scientific regulation of the white-fish industry? Ministers have always claimed that cuts in quotas are imposed only after the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. Will the First Minister accept that the methods used by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea as a means of calculating cod stocks is "subject to error", as the Royal Society of Edinburgh scientists claim, and will he ensure that the views of the industry as well as those of fishery scientists are taken into account in future stock analysis?

The First Minister: The points that the Royal Society of Edinburgh made were very interesting. We have said that we support the general thrust and direction of what was stated in the report. I hope that the Conservatives in the Parliament will also listen to what was said in that report, which makes it clear that there is a need for a common fisheries policy in Europe and that that common fisheries policy should have the active engagement of Scotland. I hope that Mr Brocklebank will listen to his good advice to me and take it himself.

(S2O-1045) Breath Test Equipment

2004-01-08T14:33:00.001Z

3. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether portable breath testing equipment used by police forces is calibrated to detect 9 micrograms or more of alcohol in 100ml of breath as well as being able to detect 35 micrograms or more in 100ml. (S2O-1045)

The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson): There is no current requirement for equipment to have that capability. However, steps are being taken to ensure that equipment is calibrated and test approved in time for the implementation of new United Kingdom legislation later this year.

Stewart Stevenson: The minister will be aware of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, which introduces breath testing for pilots. I am sure that she shares my distress that there have been a number of instances where pilots have been unfit for duty because of alcohol. When will the police stationed at Scotland's airports have the necessary equipment to test at 9 micrograms and thus be in a position to enforce the valuable new legislation?

Cathy Jamieson: I share the member's concern. I am aware of the provisions of the 2003 act; although it is on a reserved subject, it relates to a number of issues in Scotland. I am told that all our airports, including the smaller rural airfields, will have access to hand-held, portable breath testing equipment. It should be on site and available in time for when the legislation comes into force. That will mean that people will not be required to be taken away from the premises. Were they to fail the test, that would of course have to be followed up. I am sure that the member will also be interested to know that the 2003 act applies to private as well as commercial aviation personnel.

Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): Does the minister share my concern about the increase in drink-driving figures over the Christmas and new year period? I am ashamed to say that the worst part of the country in this regard seems to have been the Northern constabulary area, where the increase was well over 50 per cent. Has she any plans to research why there is a continuing increase in drink-driving cases? Is she considering increasing penalties for drink-driving or employing some other sanction, so that we can stop this worrying upward trend?

Cathy Jamieson: Again, I share the member's concern. It is vital that we continue to adopt a very high profile on drink-driving so as to ensure the safety of people in our communities. I am sure that other members will, like me, have received letters from families whose lives have been devastated because of the consequences of drink-driving. I would want to work with the police, the Minister for Transport and others to consider how we make progress on the matter.

There is a very clear message here: to drink and drive is simply not acceptable. It is far too dangerous, it is far too serious and, tragically, far too many lives have been lost.

(S2O-610) Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003

2003-10-09T14:39:00.001+01:00

9. Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive how much funding is being made available to local authorities to ensure that they are able to develop the core path network, as set out in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. (S2O-610)

The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Allan Wilson): The local authority settlement includes £6.5 million for 2003-04, £7.4 million for 2004-05 and £8.1 million for 2005-06 to enable local authorities to prepare for and to implement the new access legislation, including planning a system of core paths.

Mark Ballard: The consultants' report indicated that, if communities are to get what they expect out of the land reform legislation, a figure nearer £340 million over 10 years will be required. How does the Executive intend to close that gap to ensure that—as Jack McConnell said this morning—speedy progress is made in that area?

Allan Wilson: Mark Ballard has certainly identified a fairly significant funding gap. I think that he perhaps misunderstood my original response. The sums of money that I explained are available are for planning a system of core paths. When we come to establish the core path network, we will have to consider the financial requirement for that.

The core path network will not be the only means by which we will provide wider access to the countryside. Many other funders are involved in providing that, including Scottish Natural Heritage. The core path network is an important means of providing access for people of differing abilities, but it is only one means by which we will provide wider access.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab): Will the minister indicate when Parliament might be able to see the final version of the access code that is so vital to the operation of the important Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003? Does he agree that it is important that the access code reflects the Parliament's intentions and that we get to debate the access code before it is finally agreed in its correct form? Does he further agree that it is important that issues that have yet to be resolved, such as passage around farmyards, are finally and properly resolved?

Allan Wilson: I agree with those points. It is important that the access code is subject to the fullest consultation. It is only recently that SNH has completed its consultation. The matter will then come to ministers for approval and from there to Parliament for its approval. I expect that some of the issues about disputes over access rights to which the member refers will be covered in the local authority access forums that will be set up and will be designed to facilitate dispute resolution.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I welcome the £22 million over three years that the minister has indicated will be available. I take it that the money applies to the consultation and the publishing of maps and so forth. Will the minister tell us how many miles of core paths the money will provide and what proportion will be existing rights of way? What further funding will be available thereafter to develop new paths?

Members: Ask the mayor of Sligo.

Allan Wilson: No, but I will get on the case right away. We will get out the maps and the cartographers to check just how many more core paths will be introduced.

I repeat the serious point that the core path network is but one means of ensuring wider and more responsible access to our countryside. We expect that in due course the entire countryside—excluding Sligo—will be opened up to wider access. I know that Stewart Stevenson will support those aims.

(S2F-268) Land Ownership

2003-10-09T12:04:00.001+01:00

4. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to establish a publicly accessible and complete register showing land ownership in Scotland. (S2F-268)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): Scotland has had a publicly accessible register of land ownership since 1617, which is being replaced by a fully computerised and plan-based land register of Scotland. Land registration is organised by reference to the old counties of Scotland and the new land register has been operational in all those counties since April this year. Registration first takes place when ownership is transferred.

Stewart Stevenson: Is it smart that our current land register conceals beneficial ownership of a huge part of our land? Is it successful to allow that concealment to be used to avoid effective tax collection? Should Scotland's people be able to find accountable owners when they need to? Smart, successful Scotland requires transparent land ownership.

The First Minister: Stewart Stevenson raises two issues. One is about having a complete land register, towards which we are working. The register is added to when land is sold or transferred. In time, that will be a good asset for Scotland.

The second issue is beneficial ownership of land, which the land reform policy group has raised. In the previous parliamentary session, the Executive researched the subject and found that a strong case could not be made for implementing the changes that Mr Stevenson advocates. However, we will keep the matter open for consideration; I am sure that the matter will be discussed in Parliament over a long period.

Rhona Brankin (Midlothian) (Lab): Does the First Minister agree that, although compiling lists and directories of land ownership may be interesting, what really matters to people in Scotland is access to the countryside, regardless of who owns the land?

The First Minister: How the land is operated is just as important as how it is owned. It is also important that everyone in Scotland can enjoy the new rights of access that Parliament has created and of which we should be proud. One obligation that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 created was on local authorities and others to create and maintain a system of paths throughout Scotland. We want to make speedy progress on that in order to ensure that everybody, regardless of their income, background or community, has access to the countryside and the open spaces of Scotland so that they can exercise and enjoy their country.

Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP): The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations argues that the fact that vast areas of Scotland are owned by a few wealthy individuals, many of whom live abroad as tax exiles and refuse to free up land for housing, is a substantial and serious obstacle to providing social housing in rural areas. Does the First Minister agree with the federation and, if so, what does he intend to do about the situation?

The First Minister: One of the most significant things that Parliament has achieved is a shift in the balance of power, particularly in rural communities, by giving people new rights of ownership of the land on which they live. That measure has had opponents, but I am proud of it. Those rights, which have been overdue for many decades, now exist in Scotland.

I am not in favour of the compulsory transfer of land ownership; the right time to transfer ownership is when the land has been put up for sale. However, where ownership of estates has not been transferred and is in private hands, an important part of our strategy must be to achieve access to those estates to build homes. The new money that Margaret Curran announced this week in Stornoway for rural housing developments will be part of the package that will be considered for that strategy. The money will not be used only for new housing association and local authority developments, but for new developments on private and Forestry Commission Scotland land.

Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): In addition to compulsory registration of land when ownership changes, will the minister consider looking back? I understand that the present register is seriously defective because existing owners have not registered. Could the law be extended to make such people register their land?

The First Minister: I have no doubt that there will come a point in the process at which that measure will be required for the last few pieces of land that will not have been registered. The process of moving from the old register to the new one in Scotland has been successful. The move has been done stage by stage, county by county and property by property during the past two decades. We must now look to escalate the process and ensure that property is registered whenever it changes hands. We must also consider a medium-term voluntary agreement by which people can register land, whether or not it has changed hands. Subsequently, at the end of the process, we must consider dealing through a compulsory scheme with the few remaining individuals who have not co-operated.

Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP): Does the First Minister agree that the option to purchase land ought to be registered, so that the potential beneficial ownership of land, particularly land that might be available for development, is clear and transparent?

The First Minister: We should try to ensure that things are as clear and transparent as possible, but we also need to act in a way that is seen to be reasonable by the public and which is reasonable in relation to the rights that people have over land that they own. That is why we have taken the absolutely right and radical—but not crazy or extreme—step of ensuring that when people sell their property, in certain circumstances they must give the community the first option to buy it.

I disagree fundamentally with the Scottish nationalist party and others, who insist that there should be a compulsory purchase scheme, under which the original landowners would have no rights whatever. That policy is fundamentally wrong, whereas our policy achieves the right balance between community engagement and the rights of those who own the land in the first place.

(S2O-3) Scottish Ambulance Service

2003-05-29T14:06:00.001+01:00

6. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in reducing the amount of on-call work carried out by Scottish Ambulance Service staff. (S2O-3)

The Minister for Health and Community Care (Malcolm Chisholm): Last year, the Scottish Ambulance Service converted stations at Dunoon, Fraserburgh and Stranraer from part-time to full-time working. The service has a programme of reducing on-call work wherever possible and constantly monitors on-call hours worked.

Stewart Stevenson: Is the minister aware that the Scottish Ambulance Service's chief executive wrote to me on 10 April last year to give the commitment that Peterhead station would be upgraded to full-time working? Staff were told on 22 April 2002 that 10 staff would be recruited in the year ending April 2003. On 28 February 2003, the then Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care could not give me a date for full-time working at Peterhead. When will the Executive fulfil its commitments, give me a date and give the people of north-east Scotland the service that they need?

Malcolm Chisholm: That decision is properly for the Scottish Ambulance Service's chief executive. One of the service's priority stations for conversion from part-time to full-time work is Peterhead, but Mr Stevenson should remember the other significant changes that have taken place in the service in his area recently, such as the start of priority dispatch, joint working initiatives with the national health service and full-time working at Fraserburgh, to which I referred. He should also remember the significant developments in the service throughout Scotland, most notably the recruitment of 200 extra emergency ambulance staff in one year—last year—throughout Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson: That is a no, is it, minister?

The Presiding Officer: Order.

(S1F-2575) Emergency Planning (Support)

2003-03-13T12:04:00.001Z

4. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister what additional support is being given to local government emergency planning officers to assist in responding to emergencies following the relocation of military personnel from Scotland. (S1F-2575)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): Emergency planning in Scotland is kept under constant review to ensure that Scotland is able and ready to deal with any emergency that might arise. When circumstances change, plans are adjusted by those who are responsible for them.

Stewart Stevenson: In an earlier answer, the First Minister said that several exercises had taken place in councils throughout Scotland. I understand that most of them were desktop exercises. I draw the First Minister's attention to the fact that the budget for emergency planning in local authorities is only just over half what the Executive spends on advertising. Does that not show that the Executive's electoral future has a higher priority than the safety of people throughout Scotland?

The First Minister: Apart from the fact that additional funding is available for emergency planning, quite frankly that was a silly question. It is nonsense to suggest that the Executive's road safety advertising and other such advertising has anything to do with the election. To say so demeans Stewart Stevenson and others who make that argument.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Glasgow) (Ind): In the event of war with Iraq, has the national health service in Scotland made plans for the hospitalisation of wounded troops?

The First Minister: We all hope that that situation will not arise. If it does, Scottish hospitals will, as Dorothy-Grace Elder can imagine, play their part in providing the appropriate services that are needed as part of the national health service across the UK.

(S1O-6568) Learn to Let Go

2003-03-06T14:37:00.000Z

7. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what the achievements of its learn to let go campaign have been. (S1O-6568)

The Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning (Lewis Macdonald): The learn to let go campaign is designed to encourage people to consider a wider range of options when undertaking their daily journeys. Recent independent research indicates that it has been successful in raising travel awareness for significant numbers of people throughout Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson: Does the minister agree that, having spent £1.1 million over recent times, it is disgraceful that only now is he getting round to evaluating the research? Is he aware of research, commissioned by his own department, which states that advertising, however well designed, is unlikely to impact upon behaviour and that there is no evidence of it having such an impact? Does he recognise that the Executive has a serial addiction to spending our money on promoting its benefits and that it is the minister's party that must learn to let go over the next eight weeks?

Lewis Macdonald: An attack on advertising by the Scottish National Party is a fascinating political initiative.

I will set some of the facts straight, because Stewart Stevenson is clearly not aware of them. The research to which I refer includes research conducted by two different agencies; it was conducted in February 2001, October 2001, December 2002 and January 2003. I am sorry that he has only now got round to reading that research but, now that he has, he will appreciate that the campaign contributes significantly to our strategy of raising awareness about the availability of public transport throughout Scotland.

Mr David Davidson (North-East Scotland) (Con): Does the minister agree that the best way in which to get people to give up using their cars is to provide adequate public transport choices, particularly in rural Scotland? To that end, will he further the progress of the petition to reopen Laurencekirk station in Aberdeenshire?

Lewis Macdonald: I agree with Mr Davidson's point about the importance of rural public transport. I am glad to put on the record the Executive's contributions in the past few weeks, such as another £150,000 towards rural community transport in Aberdeenshire alone. Our contributions to scheduled rural bus services in Aberdeenshire are significant and, at the end of last year, we agreed to provide a further £2 million for the consideration of bus access from Aberdeenshire to Aberdeen.

The appropriate body, which is Aberdeenshire Council, is considering Laurencekirk railway station, and I look forward with interest to the council's conclusions.

(S1O-6468) Aquaculture

2003-02-20T14:03:00.001Z

3. Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of the aquaculture industry and what matters were discussed. (S1O-6468)

The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Allan Wilson): The Scottish Executive meets regularly with representatives of the aquaculture industry to discuss a wide range of issues. The last meeting took place on Monday, when the working group, which I chair, discussed the strategic framework for aquaculture.

Tavish Scott: I understand that the minister plans to publish the framework document in March. Will he confirm that he is looking at two specific areas, namely, a one-stop-shop approach for the industry for making applications and the need to bear down on costs as a result of the incredibly intense competitive pressures that exist, given the nature of salmon farming at the moment?

Allan Wilson: I confirm that both matters will be the subject of future consideration by the industry, the regulators and all the public bodies that are associated with it. On Monday, the working group agreed that in developing the framework, the issue of a one-stop shop should be revisited in around two years, after the transfer of planning powers to local authorities has been implemented. We are also in the process of developing research into costs to the industry and comparing costs and regulatory and other burdens with those in competitor countries.

Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green): Does the minister agree that, in the document in question, the time scales for the revision of locational guidelines are unacceptably long?

Allan Wilson: The strategic working group considered time scales, to which we are making a number of amendments. The locational guidelines are reviewed approximately every 18 months and have recently been reviewed. In the circumstances, I do not consider an 18-month time scale for further review to be unreasonable.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Does the minister recall that last year, the Danes caught 1.5 million tonnes in their pernicious industrial fishery and that a significant part of that catch was for the preparation of food for aquaculture? While I recognise that the feed sustainability study is already under way, will he tell us what progress is being made to develop alternative supplies of food so that white fish in the North sea do not starve and neither do our farmed fish?

Allan Wilson: We debated that matter at the most recent meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee. It is critical that the sustainability of feed stocks for acquaculture expands as we hope it will. The problem with the science to date is that scientists have been unable to replicate the omega oils that make salmon in particular so nutritious. Research and development is under way at a global level to address such problems so that sustainable feed stocks from renewable sources can replace the wild stocks that are currently used.

(S1F-2462) Fishing Communities (Support)

2003-01-30T12:03:00.001Z

3. Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): To ask the First Minister what measures are being introduced to support communities affected by the cuts in the fishing industry. (S1F-2462)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): On Tuesday, Ross Finnie announced the biggest ever package of transitional and structural aid for the Scottish fishing industry. Up to £50 million will be allocated to secure a sustainable long-term future for the Scottish fishing industry.

Rhoda Grant: Does the First Minister agree that we must protect conservation-led fisheries, such as those in Alasdair Morrison's constituency in the Western Isles, and in many more areas throughout the west coast of Scotland? Will he ensure that the west coast fisheries will be protected from ruinous displacement from other areas in the UK?

The First Minister: Yes. That is an important objective, which Rhoda Grant has raised with me on a number of occasions. We are working to ensure, preferably in agreement with the industry, that conditions are placed on the aid so that those who currently fish elsewhere do not move their catching to the western fisheries. It is important that we put that condition on the aid, because there is little point in our providing aid if the fishing effort simply moves west and causes problems elsewhere. The western fisheries are critical in the overall equation, although the package that was announced this week is largely for the north-east.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Does the First Minister recall European Council regulation 1263/1999? The regulation states:

"Community financial assistance may be granted for the implementation of measures in support of ... revitalising areas dependent on fisheries".

It also states that such assistance can be used for "innovative actions". Will the First Minister accept that fishing communities across Scotland are bitter about his redundancy plans for them and his manifest failure to tap into Community funds, while Spain gets money to build new boats that will be used to fish out our fish in years to come? Will he now ask for European money to save our communities?

The First Minister: I thank the member for his question and for welcoming me to Peterhead on Sunday afternoon—even if it was from behind the barrier. It was good to see him there.

There are a number of important points to make about the fishing industry. First, we must dispel the myth that there is some European Union money floating around that could have been applied for. That is simply not true. Had SNP members listened at all over the past fortnight, they would be aware that any reallocation of money within Scotland's overall fishing structural funds for the purposes that Mr Stevenson outlined would simply have led to a reduction in money for the fish processing industry. That would have been wrong.

This week, we announced the allocation of money over and above the amount that the European Commission was prepared to allocate for the Scottish fishing industry. That positive move compares favourably with the so-called recovery package that the SNP proposed this morning. The SNP says that it would scrap plans to spend money on decommissioning. However, that would simply result in a reduction in the number of days at sea for those in the north-east from 15 to nine, as outlined by the European Commission.

The SNP also says that it would maintain the industry's critical mass, but that would simply ensure that the North sea fishery stocks were depleted more quickly, thereby threatening the long-term sustainability of the industry. Moreover, the SNP says that it would provide fishery-related firms with rates relief, which it would take from the £50 million. We have made it clear that that money will be in addition to the £50 million. The SNP's recovery plan would not help the recovery of the Scottish fishing industry but lead to its decline. That is why the SNP plan will be rejected by fishing communities across Scotland.

Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): First, I notice that £40 million of the £50 million on offer is for decommissioning. In other words, it is a redundancy package for the Scottish white-fish fleet. Does the First Minister honestly think that the £10 million left over will be anything like enough to cover the losses of the affiliated fishery workers and processors? Secondly, what is to happen to the boats that carry on? They will labour under 50 per cent cuts in their quotas and 50 per cent cuts in the number of fishing days. What will the First Minister's Government do to help those fishermen who are bravely trying to soldier on against the most appalling odds?

The First Minister: I will preface my remarks by saying that the cuts in quota are too deep and the impositions on days at sea are too severe. At the same time, it is vital to be honest about the matter, to face up to difficult decisions and to take the actions that will lead to a long-term future for the fishing industry.

The reality is that, if decommissioning does not take place, the majority of European Union member states will vote—it will happen automatically—to reduce the number of days at sea, possibly to even less than nine. If we do not reduce the take from the stock in the North sea, the long-term future of the industry will be less viable.

We need a balanced plan that ensures the industry's short-term future through aid, decommissioning and more days at sea than were originally proposed, attached to long-term action that will secure a more sustainable fishery. That is the right plan. Ross Finnie's announcement on Tuesday was right for the industry.

George Lyon (Argyll and Bute) (LD): Have discussions with the fishing industry begun? How will the £10 million of traditional aid be delivered to the fishing industry? When will the money begin to flow to hard-pressed fishermen who are faced with tying up on Saturday?

The First Minister: We will make the money available as quickly as possible. The Parliament will have to make the right approvals over the coming weeks. Discussions have been under way since December and those discussions will now become more detailed, because we know the overall scale of the package. I hope that we will be able to provide the aid in the near future, so that we can secure the temporary provisions that are required to see us through such a difficult period. I hope that, at the end of the day, we will have not only a stronger fishing industry, but a better set of decisions in Brussels.

The Presiding Officer: Because of the earlier interruption, I will take question 4.

(S1F-2262) Fishing

2002-11-14T12:04:00.001Z

4. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will respond to European Union announcements on fishing made on 11 November 2002. (S1F-2262)

The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace): I will repeat what has been said before. The protection of the industry and fishing communities across Scotland is of paramount importance. As Mr Stevenson will be aware, the European Commission was unable to publish its proposals on 11 November as anticipated. Commissioner Fischler appears to recognise that wholesale closure is not acceptable and efforts continue, in discussions with the industry and others, to identify suitable alternatives. I know that that approach has the overwhelming support of the Parliament.

Stewart Stevenson: Does the Deputy First Minister agree that at this time of crisis we need unity of purpose between fishing communities and the elected politicians of all parties? Will he join me in welcoming the Fraserburgh fishermen's wives' campaign in this regard?

In addition to speaking to the Secretary of State for Scotland, will the Deputy First Minister speak to the Prime Minister about having Mr Finnie appointed as a UK minister—I say this in a genuine cross-party spirit—so that the Prime Minister has the benefit of having a minister at his elbow who has at least been out listening to fishermen? That would avoid the Prime Minister, as at column 28 of Hansard yesterday, running up the white flag for fishing in these islands.

Mr Wallace: I agree that the issue should be approached on an all-party basis, as has been the case. The meeting that my colleague Ross Finnie—and, indeed, other colleagues present from all parties in the Parliament—attended in Aberdeen on Monday was indicative of that coming together not only of politicians, but of the community and of the fishing industry on the catching and processing sides.

I would welcome any positive contribution that the Fraserburgh fishermen's wives make. I am getting somewhat used to delegations of and representations from wives of those employed in the north-east of Scotland. I hope that the Fraserburgh wives are as effective in their campaign as the Peterhead wives were in theirs.

On Stewart Stevenson's other point, it might be taking coalition politics too far to suggest that Mr Finnie might replace Mrs Beckett. The industry and our fishing community need concerted effort to ensure that we get the right answers. They do not need navel gazing about who sits in which chair in the Council of Ministers.

Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): Does the Deputy First Minister accept that Franz Fischler's delphic mutterings on Monday were no great progress? Does he accept that the Scottish fishing industry needs a long-term recovery plan for stocks and for fishing communities, which will face considerable crisis if the European Commission's plans are allowed to proceed? Does he accept that that is a better way to approach the matter than is a policy that is based on the political virility of Herr Fischler, who fails to understand the realities of cod in a mixed fishery?

Mr Wallace: I would not want to dismiss gratuitously what Herr Fischler said. There may not have been a road-to-Damascus conversion, but a glint of light is some step towards the blinding flash that might yet come to him.

I agree with Tavish Scott that we need to develop a longer-term strategy for our fisheries. That is important. However, the more pressing need is to ensure a successful outcome for the current round of negotiations. I know that my colleague Ross Finnie is making every effort to that end. He is making extensive representations to try not only to take forward the argument among those at home, but to engage our European partners in that argument.

Tavish Scott is right about the importance of our fishing communities. The sustainability of the stocks and of the fishing communities is far more important than the fate of one European Union commissioner.

Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Will the Deputy First Minister try to ensure that, in 2003, technical and management measures are uniform in all areas of the North sea and west coast to stop the present discrimination against Scottish fishermen? When he speaks to the Prime Minister, will he tell him that we have 30 days to save our fishing industry and that the clock is now ticking?

Mr Wallace: Proper account should be taken of the steps that have already been taken in Scotland, not least the decommissioning of the white fish fleet and the developments in mesh sizes as technical conservation measures. It is vital that full and proper account is taken of those when discussions take place with regard to the kind of measures that will be introduced. I hope that what Jamie McGrigor said was consistent with the all-party consensus on trying to achieve a successful outcome.

Mr McGrigor indicated agreement.

Mr Wallace: Jamie McGrigor is indicating that it is. That is welcome.

Mr Alasdair Morrison (Western Isles) (Lab): Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, as a matter of urgency, we must strike a balance between fish stocks and catching capacity and that we must reduce the amount of immature fish that are being caught? Do he and his ministerial team believe that we could learn from our Faeroese and Icelandic colleagues, who are not reducing the number of boats that are going to sea, but are ensuring that their fishermen do not use catch-all nets? Does he agree that we must safeguard the west coast prawn fishery in constituencies such as the Western Isles from any mass diversion of effort from areas of the United Kingdom where restrictions are imposed on vessels that have been fishing for cod?

Mr Wallace: I accept that there has been a serious need for some time to address the mismatch between capacity and stocks. That is a structural problem, which we have been discussing within the context of the on-going review of the common fisheries policy. It is important that we get that right. Lessons can and should be learned from the experience of fisheries management not only within the EU, but elsewhere, as Alasdair Morrison indicated. As Ross Finnie has made clear, we believe, based on the health of the stocks, that the nephrops fishery is sustainable. We agree that that fishery needs to be protected from the impact of any cod recovery measures.

(S1O-5505) Seaports, Harbours and Jetties

2002-11-12T14:12:00.001Z

12. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has for the future development of seaports, harbours and jetties. (S1O-5505)

The Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning (Lewis Macdonald): The ports policy paper "Modern Ports: A UK Policy", which was produced jointly by the Scottish Executive and the UK Government, provides a clear strategy for the future development of ports and harbours in Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson: Is the minister aware that this week's The Buchan Observer contains a worrying indication that the disastrous aggregates tax may result in the loss of nearly half Peterhead Bay Authority's business? Will he note that SNP councillors have been joined by a representative of the parties that make up the coalition Executive in expressing concern about the matter? The sole Liberal Democrat councillor in my constituency said:

"Our key developments centre round the bay. It has always been our economic base."

Will the minister say what action he plans to take to offset the effect of the aggregates tax?

Lewis Macdonald: I am aware of the issues relating to the Peterhead Bay Authority. I am also aware that the authority has a very ambitious investment project. I would not expect that to be delayed or put off by relatively marginal costs. It is for the authority to produce a commercial plan that takes into account the existing tax framework. Like other commercial harbours around the country, Peterhead bay is expected to produce its own surplus for investment. It is not our policy to invest public money in commercial harbours—that position will not change.

Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): In the light of the successful timber-loading programme at Ardrishaig in Argyll, what action is the Scottish Executive taking to restore more piers throughout the Highlands and Islands? Such restoration would allow more timber to be carried by sea and prevent huge damage being caused to the Scottish road network.

Lewis Macdonald: Jamie McGrigor will be aware that we have a continuing programme for funding piers and harbours in the Highlands and Islands. They are supported differently to commercial harbours elsewhere in the country, because they provide lifeline services to local communities. We will continue to roll out our programme over the coming years.

(S1O-5411) Fishing Rights

2002-06-27T14:09:00.004+01:00

9. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to protect Scotland's historic fishing rights. (S1O-5411)

The Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Ross Finnie): The Scottish Executive engages with the Commission at ministerial and official level and is an integral part of the United Kingdom negotiating team on fisheries. In those respective capacities, we are working to ensure that Scotland's interests are fully represented during the current review of the common fisheries policy.

Stewart Stevenson: Does the minister recall saying in the plenary debate on the CFP on 13 June:

"The Commission is not proposing to disrupt existing relative stability shares." —[Official Report, 13 June 2002; c 12718.]

Is the minister aware that on 19 June, John Farnell, speaking on behalf of the Commission, said at the European Parliament Fisheries Committee that although we have relative stability today, the Commission believes that one day we should not, and that the question was how and how quickly we got there? Is the minister not guilty of breathtaking complacency in not demanding the lead role in Europe on the UK's negotiations on the CFP in order to defend Scottish fishermen?

Ross Finnie: There was a lot of sound and fury there, but I do not know whether it added up to much. Mr Stevenson will recall that in that plenary fisheries debate I made clear the Executive's position, which I will repeat. We will defend relative stability, just as we will defend the interests of the Shetland box and the Hague preference. Those matters are all fundamental to Scotland's historical fishing rights. I made that clear during the debate and I repeat it. What John Farnell, the commissioner and others say is important. I do not dismiss it. However, the crucial issue is what the Commission finally decides on the document that will revise the CFP.

I cannot be clearer about where I and the Scottish Executive stand on those matters. We are absolutely committed to protecting Scotland's fishing interests.

Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): I agree with the minister's comments. However, will the minister reflect further on the deep frustration that local fishermen feel at the Commission's handling of deepwater species—particularly at the lack of science to back up the deal that the Commission negotiated with the Spanish presidency? Will he undertake to ensure that, in future negotiations on CFP reform, it will be at the heart of his agenda that science will underpin stock assessment details?

Ross Finnie: I could not agree more with what Tavish Scott said. One of the fundamental reasons why we voted against the compromise that the presidency suggested and that the Commission—regrettably—supported was that it was wholly unsupported by science. I say to Tavish Scott that I made that position very clear to the commissioner and his cabinet. I find it unacceptable that, when we are trying to have a rational debate on proceeding with CFP reform and on how we deal with the conservation of stocks, we do so other than on the basis of good scientific advice. Such advice must be at the heart of any CFP review proposals on how to deal with conservation.

Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Does the minister agree that total allowable catches and quotas are not the right tools with which to manage deepwater species? What is his comment on the fact that Scottish fishermen are left with 2 per cent of the quotas, whereas French fishermen apparently have 80 per cent of the quotas for those species?

Ross Finnie: As Jamie McGrigor ought to know, the Scottish Executive's position, which was endorsed by the UK, was that we were opposed to using TACs in deepwater fisheries. We made that position very clear to the Commission when the proposal was first debated. I can only repeat that I find the final settlement highly unacceptable and that that is why we voted against it.

Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West): Will the Executive protect Scotland's historical freshwater fishing rights by setting up a democratically constituted Scottish anglers trust to administer all freshwater fishing rights in Scotland and to ensure more opportunities for ordinary anglers instead of protecting the privileges of the big landowners?

Ross Finnie: I am not entirely sure that that forms part of the common fisheries policy review, Presiding Officer, and I am not entirely sure that Mr Canavan would wish the European Union's common fisheries policy review to extend that far.

Dennis Canavan: No.

Ross Finnie: I thought that we might be agreed on that at least.

I take Mr Canavan's point on the need to protect the freshwater fisheries. That is what the strategies that we are implementing seek to do and also what the legislation that we are promoting seeks to do. I assure Mr Canavan that the Executive is as concerned to protect our rights in freshwater fishing as it is concerned about sea fisheries.

The Presiding Officer: The question was about historical fishing rights. It was not confined to Europe. [Applause.] Order.

Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): I believe that, for the first time, aquaculture will be included in the revised CFP. There is some anxiety among fish farmers about the amount of support that they can expect and the amount of protection from non-European Union producers that they will have. Will the minister make a commitment that all the stakeholders in the industry will be consulted on the aquaculture section of the revised CFP so that we can achieve an outcome that allows us to continue to develop that high quality industry of ours, but do so in an environmentally responsible manner?

Ross Finnie: While the Presiding Officer is contemplating whether aquaculture is a historical fishing right, I will leap in to answer the question. I assure Maureen Macmillan that the Commission's draft proposals contain an important section that highlights the significant and integrated role that aquaculture will play in the future of our fisheries policy. I assure her that, as the Scottish Executive will consult all fishing sectors before we come to a view on how to respond to the definite proposals on CFP reform, the aquaculture sector will be included in that wide consultation.

The Presiding Officer: The minister got his own back—aquaculture cannot be a historic fishing right.

(S1O-5341) Anti-social Behaviour

2002-06-13T14:07:00.001+01:00

7. Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to address the issue of anti-social behaviour. (S1O-5341)

The Minister for Social Justice (Ms Margaret Curran): The Executive is taking a range of steps to address anti-social behaviour at the local level. We have introduced new legislative measures such as probationary tenancies and interim anti-social behaviour orders. We have also acted to identify and disseminate good practice and new approaches.

Karen Whitefield: Is the minister aware that North Lanarkshire Council has established a task force to tackle anti-social behaviour? How does the minister intend to promote good practice such as that at a local level? Does she agree that there is a need for interim anti-social behaviour orders, as was suggested during the progress of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, to allow councils to deal urgently with the problem?

Ms Curran: Those questions raise a number of issues. We are taking action across several fronts. We have made some £250,000 available for three years to promote good practice, which includes the work going on in North Lanarkshire. I intend to visit there in the near future to discuss housing issues and I will examine the issue of anti-social behaviour while I am there. We have funded the post of a social neighbourhoods co-ordinator, who is based in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We have also funded Safeguarding Communities and Reducing Offending in Scotland, to promote and develop mediation services throughout Scotland. Interim anti-social behaviour orders will be addressed in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. That has happened because of what occurred during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): In the light of what I believe is widespread ignorance among police, councils and communities about the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, which helps individuals and communities to take action against certain types of anti-social behaviour, will the minister indicate whether she is willing to take steps to ensure greater knowledge of the act's potential?

Ms Curran: Yes, I am happy to give the assurance that we will take action and work with colleagues to ensure that knowledge of the 2001 act is disseminated. Mr Stevenson will know that the act began as a committee bill, but the Executive took responsibility for ensuring that the act was properly implemented.

Work is being undertaken on the sheriff court rules and Citizens Advice Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid are working to promote the act. I will happily promote the act as much as possible.

Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con): Is the minister aware that, a few years ago, Dundee City Council had a policy of locating anti-social tenants in specific areas? Some might call that ghettoising. Does the minister approve of that move and, if so, will she encourage other authorities to do the same, to bring peace to the many responsible tenants who find anti-social tenants impossible to deal with?

Ms Curran: Mr Gallie must be referring to the Conservatives' policy of sin bins—

Phil Gallie: It was a Labour council.

Ms Curran: Bear with me; I will try to address the point. Phil Gallie's comments bear a striking similarity to Bill Aitken's proposal for sin bins, which he made during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I accept Phil Gallie's point about Dundee City Council. The Executive is clear about the unacceptability of anti-social behaviour. We want to take decisive action to eradicate that behaviour and to ensure that there are proper penalties for those who engage in it. During the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, we were not persuaded that sin bins are appropriate. I do not know the details of the scheme in Dundee, but I have been particularly impressed with the Dundee mediation project, which is making significant strides in tackling anti-social behaviour.

I guarantee members that we will take effective and decisive action to tackle anti-social behaviour, but it is not easy to do that—we cannot wave a magic wand and solve everything. The issue requires action on a number of fronts, which is what we are taking.

(S1F-1932) Scottish Prison Service Estates Review

2002-05-30T14:33:00.001+01:00

3. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the First Minister how many responses to the Scottish Prison Service estates review have been received by the service. (S1F-1932)

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell): Eighty-eight responses were received by 27 May 2002.

Stewart Stevenson: I take this opportunity to thank the First Minister, the Minister for Justice and Richard Simpson, the Deputy Minister for Justice, for their courtesy in giving up some of their time today to see the campaigners for Her Majesty's Prison Peterhead. I extend those thanks to members from all parties.

Eighty-eight is a substantial number of responses and we still have a little time to run. Do those responses indicate a range of options that we can set against those of the Scottish Prison Service? Will the First Minister be minded to consider seriously any alternatives to the current proposals?

The First Minister: I am serious about every consultation exercise that we engage in and I am absolutely committed to studying the outcome of the consultation on the prison estates, just as I am committed to studying the outcome of consultation on any other matter. We will indeed take on board the comments and suggestions that are made during the consultation and we will consider them carefully before coming to our conclusions.

Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): Is the First Minister aware that a number of Labour members have met representatives of the Prison Officers Association Scotland, who have made clear their willingness to be involved in progressing the reform and investment that is needed in our prison estate? Does he agree that, if the estates review is to deliver a prison estate that is fit for the 21st century, there must be full and genuine consultation between the SPS, the prison officers and the trade unions?

The First Minister: I certainly support full and genuine consultation in the Prison Service. I urge the POAS, if it believes that it has alternative proposals that can bridge the funding gap that we have identified, to make those proposals to us clearly. If the POAS is willing to make the reforms that might help to bridge the funding gap and to achieve the objectives that we have set, we will certainly be interested to hear from its representatives.

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): The Executive took two and a half years to come up with the estates review but there were only 12 weeks for consultation. Will the minister consider extending the consultation period, within which the Justice 1 Committee is finding it difficult to work?

The First Minister: I believe that the fact that there was a long period between the initial suggestion of a review and the publication of the review means that people have a good idea of what they want to say during the consultation period. The consultation period of 12 weeks is normal for such an exercise. It is important for us to bring the matter to a conclusion. It is therefore important to complete the consultation period, to consider the consultation responses and to come to our decisions, as we intend to do.

Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con): Have there been any responses from communities that are keen to have the sex offenders institution sited among them? If not, does not the First Minister think that the people of Peterhead's acceptance of the institution is valuable and that we should retain the institution there?

The First Minister: I do not know whether any of the responses that we have received have demanded to have a sex offenders institution in a town or community anywhere in Scotland. I am not aware of any such response having been submitted but, if one has been submitted, we will obviously consider it.

On Peterhead prison, detailed and serious consideration is needed of the merits of all the aspects of the case that has been made in the prison estates review. That is not just about the location. It is about the programmes that take place in the prison and about ensuring that the buildings are in a fit condition for the 21st century. I hope that those who are submitting responses are taking all those factors into account. I hope that they are making reasonable submissions that we can read with care. We will make our final decisions having listened to all those who have become involved.

Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): Is the First Minister aware of Aberdeenshire Council's proposals for rebuilding Peterhead prison on the same site through a private build, public operate option, which it discussed with members at a reception yesterday? The council believes that that option will be a viable alternative to refurbishing the existing prison. Will the First Minister ensure that those plans are given due consideration in the prison estates review?

The First Minister: I am happy to confirm that all serious submissions will be duly considered in the prison estates review.

(S1O-5257) Fishing (Seine Net)

2002-05-30T14:14:00.001+01:00

14. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to encourage seine net fishing. (S1O-5257)

The Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Ross Finnie): We are not specifically encouraging seine net fishing, nor are we discouraging it. The science shows that it has no particular conservation benefit and it is therefore essentially a commercial judgment for the fishermen concerned.

Stewart Stevenson: Is the minister aware that a significant minority of skippers believe that seine net fishing has significant environmental advantages and delivers better quality fish? Will he consider supporting the training necessary to bring more skippers into the seine net fishing industry?

Ross Finnie: I do not wish to be disrespectful to the views of that minority, but I repeat that recent trials have been inconclusive about whether the use of seine nets makes any difference when the same cod end is used. Therefore, the environmental benefit has not been proven. The case for seine nets can be argued in terms of quality, because of the swifter nature of the catch, but the trials to date do not prove conclusively the range of environmental benefits that some fishermen have posited. It is essentially a commercial matter for the fishermen concerned.

Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): I agree with Stewart Stevenson that seine netting is a good form of fishing. It is nice to hear him talking about something sane for a change.

Does Ross Finnie accept that mesh size restrictions, which were proposed fundamentally with trawl nets in mind, will have a much more significant effect on seine net fishermen, whose nets are more static as they have mesh that does not close in the same way as that of a net pulled by a trawler? Has that point been taken into consideration when decisions have been taken about the mesh sizes of seine or purse nets? If not, will he please make that point?

Ross Finnie: That point is already taken into account. I assure Jamie McGrigor that in the trials that took place increased mesh sizes were fully taken into consideration. As I said, no significant difference was shown in the preliminary trials when the same cod end was used. The trials are continuing. There is no evidence to prove the benefits to which Jamie McGrigor and Stewart Stevenson refer.

Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green): Has the minister taken into account in his calculations the great damage that can be done to the sea bed by some of the more modern methods of trawling?

Ross Finnie: Yes. Those methods are taken into consideration and are under constant review. To produce sustainable fisheries, we must consider the methodology and the way in which nets are deployed.

(S1O-4926) Rural Post Office Services

2002-03-21T14:09:00.001Z

9. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will make representations to Her Majesty's Government on the possible impact on rural areas of any reorganisation of post office services. (S1O-4926)

The Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Ross Finnie): Consignia, post offices and postal services are a reserved matter. However, the Scottish Executive is in regular contact with the UK Government on a range of issues that include postal services, as Mr Stevenson will know from yesterday's members' business debate.

Stewart Stevenson: In last night's debate, the minister said:

"the Executive has a real locus in the question of service provision in rural areas".—[Official Report, 20 March 2002; c 10461.]

Will he confirm that he meant that he and his colleagues in the Government will campaign vigorously to protect delivery of mail at an affordable and uniform cost to every door in Scotland every day?

Ross Finnie: I can certainly confirm that we have a real locus in the provision of services in rural areas. Yesterday evening, I also made it clear that, although the postal service is a reserved matter, we have a real interest in the provision of service delivery. In conjunction with Andy Kerr and the modernising government unit, we are looking closely at how we can embody some of the sensible suggestions that are coming from the "Your Guide" project. That might help in providing the framework that would assist the Post Office in the delivery of its services.

David Mundell (South of Scotland) (Con): Is the minister aware that many members who were present for last night's debate on post office services were disappointed with his response to the debate? As always, he expressed kind words, but he offered no practical resolution to the issue of the future of post offices. Will he make real positive proposals that will allow our post offices to continue to operate in rural and deprived areas?

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Hear, hear!

Ross Finnie: Anyone who says, "Hear, hear!" must believe that they are sitting in Westminster. The postal service is a reserved matter. To expect me to announce what Consignia will do is wholly unreasonable. I pointed out our commitment, which I will repeat, that Andy Kerr and our modernising government unit will consider whether brigading services would provide a foothold that would work and that would mean that post offices could survive. "Your Guide" offers another opportunity or link by which that can be done in Scotland. That is what Andy Kerr and I will work towards.

(S1O-4891) Bus Transport (Aberdeenshire)

2002-03-14T14:02:00.000Z

2. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what the average cost to passengers per mile is for a bus journey in Aberdeenshire in comparison with the average cost in the city of Edinburgh. (S1O-4891)

The Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning (Lewis Macdonald): The information requested is not available centrally. However, the grant-aided expenditure, for which the Scottish Executive is responsible, for subsidised bus services amounts to £4.33 per head in Aberdeenshire and £4.32 per head in the city of Edinburgh.

Stewart Stevenson: I have a penny here, minister.

I thank the minister for his reply. Does he recall that, some time ago, the Executive's proposals for its integrated transport bill stated that it would take action on concessionary fares that would help pensioners stay in touch with family and friends? Is he aware that high fares in rural areas, limited services and his Executive's failure to exercise the full gamut of powers conferred by section 68 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 leaves the Executive trailing far behind the SNP's commitment to achieve a national concessionary scheme? Is it not time that the Executive moved over and made way so that the people who would implement that commitment could take control?

Lewis Macdonald: I wonder whether Mr Stevenson is the only person in Scotland who is unaware of our commitment to introduce free local off-peak travel for pensioners and disabled people from October of this year.

Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): Will the minister confirm that local authorities have already received, as part of their allocations from the Executive, funds to provide the free concessionary transport for all senior citizens? Will he also confirm that councils such as Aberdeenshire Council have the mechanisms in place to implement the service when it is due to be implemented later this year?

Lewis Macdonald: I confirm both those points. I also confirm that Aberdeenshire Council is one of the councils that have taken further steps to take advantage of the powers under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Those steps include a pilot scheme on through-ticketing, which is already in place in Aberdeenshire and will be extended to a community in Mr Stevenson's constituency in due course if it proves to be successful. I am also aware that Aberdeenshire Council has an existing non-statutory quality partnership with Aberdeen City Council and the two main local bus operators to provide bus services. Mr Rumbles is right to highlight that Aberdeenshire Council is one authority that has taken advantage of the provisions that we made in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001.

(S1O-4833) Transport (Budget)

2002-03-07T14:02:00.001Z

2. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what transport projects would go ahead if the additional notional allocation of £84 million in the transport budget, outlined in the report "Is Enough Being Spent on Transport in Scotland?", were made available. (S1O-4833)

The Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning (Lewis Macdonald): The figure that is quoted is hypothetical. The Scottish Executive transport budget continues to increase year on year in real terms.

Stewart Stevenson: Is the minister aware that spending per capita on transport has increased both in Wales since the establishment of the National Assembly and in Northern Ireland's domain? Is the minister aware that any further decline in per capita transport expenditure in Scotland, as adumbrated by the ministers' own transport adviser, Professor David Begg, will, especially in rural areas such as those beyond Aberdeen, further fuel the public's deep cynicism about the Executive's intention?

Is the minister aware that people are sick and tired of the dithering and dancing of the Executive, which is not making real progress on the ground? We do not need more studies; we need the people's priority, which is transport.

Lewis Macdonald: It is a great shame that Mr Stevenson has not read David Begg's report, to which he refers. Had he done so, he would be aware that Professor Begg does not suggest that there has been a decline in transport expenditure in Scotland. Quite the contrary: Professor Begg recognises that the task of comparing transport spend per head across different parts of the country is difficult. [Interruption.] Mr Stevenson may be pointing to the piece of paper in his hand, but I am afraid that that is no substitute for actually reading the report.

Bristow Muldoon (Livingston) (Lab): Does the minister agree that it would be a welcome development if the members in this Parliament who whinge about budget priorities produced some priorities of their own?

Lewis Macdonald: One of the great mysteries that face all of us who are engaged with transport spend is finding out what the Scottish National Party's transport priorities actually are. If that is the party to which Bristow Muldoon referred, I am sure that there will be opportunities to explore the matter further in the future.

At the time of the strategic roads review, the SNP's then transport spokesman, Kenny MacAskill—who has once again become the party's transport spokesman—said that all roads were a priority. That is clearly a bottomless-pit commitment, but the SNP will no doubt tell us how it intends to fund it in due course.

(S1O-4709) Scottish Ambulance Service

2002-02-14T14:04:00.001Z

4. Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive when the Scottish Ambulance Service will complete the introduction of a paramedic technician into every ambulance. (S1O-4709)

The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care (Hugh Henry): The service plans to have a paramedic in every emergency front-line ambulance by the end of 2005.

Pauline McNeill: Does the minister agree that, as paramedics have additional training, investment in the programme, whose aim is to ensure that a paramedic is available for every 999 call, is crucial to our emergency services? Does the minister agree that ambulance technicians, who are at the front line in many emergencies, have a difficult job and that, to meet our targets for a full paramedic service, we must look after those staff, as they are the main source of recruitment for the paramedic service?

Hugh Henry: The Scottish Ambulance Service has received additional money for three years to train 225 technicians to paramedic level. The year-on-year uplifts to its allocations have enabled it to increase the overall complement of emergency ambulance staff. There are 200 more emergency ambulance staff in the front-line vehicles than there were 10 years ago. We value and appreciate the contribution of the staff. We will do everything possible to raise standards and to protect the staff's best interests.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Does the minister recall that Scotland's two busiest part-time ambulance stations are the ones in Peterhead and Fraserburgh? Is he aware that, at grave risk to the public, staff at those stations work excessive hours to cover a full-time requirement? Does he intend to provide the necessary funding to upgrade the stations to full-time operation in the coming year?

Hugh Henry: I am not familiar with staff hours in the locality that Stewart Stevenson mentioned and members would not expect me to be familiar with them—that issue is the responsibility of local managers. The Ambulance Service is formulating proposals to improve ambulance provision in Scotland. I am sure that, as part of that, it will consider Stewart Stevenson's comments.

Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD): Does the minister accept that it is crucial that the Ambulance Service works in close collaboration with health boards, particularly given the background of the acute hospitals review and the reduction in the number of hospitals in some areas? Will he undertake to ensure that there is no halt in the funding regime that supports the increase in the number of paramedics and that the welcome funding that he announced will be safeguarded and, if necessary, ring-fenced to ensure that the increase is delivered?

Hugh Henry: As I said, the funding regime is intended to provide additional paramedics. The proposals to consider response services will improve the service that is available to the public. Robert Brown is correct that the Ambulance Service must ensure that it liaises closely with health boards. Those who rely on the provision of services in hospitals often depend on the Ambulance Service to get them there. We will ensure that close liaison will continue and, where necessary, that the liaison will improve.

(S1O-4412) Fishing Industry (2002 Quotas)

2002-01-10T14:13:00.001Z

13. Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the likely economic impact on the fish catching and fish processing industries of the 2002 quotas for white fish and for pelagic fish landings and what action it plans to take to mitigate any detrimental effects. (S1O-4412)

The Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Ross Finnie): The increases in quotas of key pelagic and white fish stocks will have a significant and, I hope, positive impact on the catching and processing sectors in Scotland. The economic return from increased landings for the United Kingdom is estimated to be between £10 and £12 million more than for the previous year. Scotland will be the major beneficiary of that. I believe that those outcomes have been welcomed by the industry.

Tavish Scott: I welcome the minister's answer and I welcome the additional quota allocations that have been secured for the Scottish fishing industry this year. However, does the minister accept that there are pressures on shore-based services in constituencies such as mine? Because of the welcome decommissioning programme, there are fewer boats to use engineering, electronics and other shore-based services. In that context, what assessment is being made of shore-based services? Does the minister have any proposals to tackle those problems?

Ross Finnie: There are two aspects to that question. The first aspect relates to the total amount of quotas. The member will be well aware that the fish processing action group continues to study the problems that beset the processing industry not only in Shetland but throughout Scotland. Those problems arise as a consequence of the recent cuts. We in Scotland continue to press the Commission for multi-annual settlements, which could give a degree of certainty about the amounts of fish that might be available for processing.

As for the problems that are consequent on decommissioning, we are looking closely at the impact that decommissioning might have on services. I am bound to say that, although we now know the numbers of vessels and the ports that they use, it is difficult to give an answer at this stage. In conjunction with other departments, we are assessing and keeping a careful watch on the impact that decommissioning might have. The member can be assured that we recognise that there are consequentials that flow from that step.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): What discussions have the minister and his colleagues had about providing support to people who worked on fishing vessels, given that only the owners will be compensated for decommissioning? Has an economic assessment been undertaken of the effect of decommissioning on the fish processing sector?

Ross Finnie: Let me take the latter question first. As Stewart Stevenson will be aware, the objective and great hope of the decommissioning scheme is that it will give greater sustainability to the whole industry. If the quotas are acquired within the producer organisations, decommissioning should not per se lead to a reduction in the amounts available to the processing industry. Greater sustainability has to be the earnest hope of us all.

The processing industry suffers because of uncertainty over the amounts that may be available. As I indicated to Tavish Scott, we in Scotland are keen to push the Commission in the direction of multi-annual settlements, which would, I believe, give greater certainty.

Dealing with the economic impact on those affected by decommissioning is, as Stewart Stevenson would acknowledge, slightly more difficult. The owners are being compensated, but we have not made a distinction—although we will as we go through the process—between those who have direct responsibility for the people who are employed and those who are not affected in that way and who will not, therefore, share in the benefits. We will watch the situation closely. We do not know the exact details, but we are cognisant of the problem.

Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): Why, despite the acceptance that industrial fishing is detrimental to the marine food chain, has no significant cut been made in the quotas for that sector, especially in the fishing for Norway pout, which leads to a large bycatch of immature fish of other species?

Ross Finnie: The reason such a cut was not made is that we did not secure a sufficient majority in the Commission during recent discussions. The consistent position of the Scottish Executive—and, I hope, of the UK Government—has been to press for continuing cuts in those areas. We very much agree with Jamie McGrigor's point and we will continue to press for reductions in those quotas.

Rhona Brankin (Midlothian) (Lab): Does the minister agree that one of the major problems facing the demersal sector in particular is the difficulty in finding crews for fishing vessels? Does he agree that the decommissioning of fishing boats might provide an opportunity for the skippers of vessels to take on qualified and experienced crew members?

Ross Finnie: Yes, I agree. The issue is linked to the one raised by Stewart Stevenson. The ramifications of decommissioning are more complex than simply saying that all those who lose their vessel as a result of decommissioning will necessarily lose their jobs. Rhona Brankin's point is valid.

(S1O-4341) HM Treasury (Meetings)

2001-12-20T14:09:00.000Z

9. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive when the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning last met Her Majesty's Treasury ministers and what issues were discussed. (S1O-4341)

The Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning (Ms Wendy Alexander): I last met the Chancellor at the Labour Party conference in October; we discussed a variety of matters.

Stewart Stevenson: Did the minister make her Treasury colleagues aware that 1,400 jobs are currently at risk throughout Scotland? Those jobs are mainly in rural areas and, unlike the 1,200 jobs that are regrettably being lost at NEC, are threatened wholly as a result of Government action. The chancellor's aggregates tax is likely to cost the breakwater project in my constituency up to £2 million and, interestingly enough, in Gordon Brown's constituency—

The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel): Order. We must have a question.

Stewart Stevenson: It is relevant, sir.

The Presiding Officer: It may be relevant, but it is not a question.

Stewart Stevenson: Is the minister aware that, in Gordon Brown's constituency, the much-welcomed Rosyth-Zeebrugge ferry project may also incur additional costs of £0.5 million? What economic assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the aggregates tax in Scotland? What representation has she made to the Treasury in London to obtain a derogation for Scotland, similar to the one that Northern Ireland has obtained, given the deleterious effects of the tax?

Ms Alexander: The Executive is in discussion with the Treasury and other parts of the UK Government about the implementation of the tax. The rules of collective responsibility preclude me from sharing any of those discussions here today. Of course, we are aware of the partial exemption for Northern Ireland.

Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): The minister will be aware of the problems of community economic development companies, such as Mid Deeside Ltd in my constituency, which have problems in accessing core funding as opposed to project funding. Does the minister have any plans to address that issue? She will be aware that I wrote to her recently on the matter.

Ms Alexander: It is important that the Parliament makes the appropriate resources available to local enterprise companies, and that those companies have the opportunity to decide priorities in their areas. A variety of local organisations contribute in important ways to economic development in their areas, but it is important that responsibility for that operates through the LEC network. It is not something that we try to second-guess in this Parliament. As Mr Rumbles is a good Liberal, I am sure that the principle of local accountability for spending decisions is one that commends itself to him.

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): I thank the minister for giving me notice of the closure of the individual learning accounts scheme as of this afternoon. Will the minister indicate the concerns about fraud and corruption that led to the closure of the scheme? Can she confirm whether the scheme has been closed or suspended? Will she indicate the number of companies and organisations that are affected?

Ms Alexander: I seek the Presiding Officer's guidance. A parliamentary question has been lodged on individual learning accounts, I have written to Alex Neil in his capacity as convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, and I am aware that a question has been lodged for the First Minister. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to answer any further questions, given that the original question concerned the aggregates tax.

The Presiding Officer: Actually, the original question was not about the aggregates tax; it was as set out under question 9. If the minister discussed with the Treasury the issue to which Alex Neil referred, she is welcome to answer the question, but if she did not, she cannot.

Alex Neil: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The issue is well within the minister's responsibilities, and it is well within the remit of the question. Given that there has not been time for a ministerial statement, the chamber is entitled to know the facts.

The Presiding Officer: If the minister does not want to answer, that is the end of the matter.

Ms Alexander: I am happy to answer on individual learning accounts if it is appropriate to do so, but the Treasury has no locus of any kind in the matter. I seek your guidance, Presiding Officer.

(S1O-4160) Prison Service

2001-11-29T14:10:00.000Z

10. Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to ensure provision of a world-class prison service. (S1O-4160)

The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace): At the end of last year the Scottish Prison Service launched a new, five-year vision committing itself to the pursuit of correctional excellence, thereby contributing to the Executive's commitment to a safer Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson: Has the Minister for Justice noted that on 22 November the First Minister said:

"We will build a better Scotland when we build the best services that we can".—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; c 4154.]

In light of that, does the minister accept, as Dr Richard Simpson did when he signed a motion supporting HM Prison Peterhead earlier this year, that Peterhead prison is a success story in the public services and that it leads the way in excellence, value for money and quality outcomes, and not just in the Scottish Prison Service?

Mr Jim Wallace: I visited Peterhead prison in February, and I give proper credit to the work that is done there and to the commitment of the staff.

Indeed, I am surprised that in the long list of things that Stewart Stevenson read out he omitted to mention that Peterhead prison has been awarded beacon site status. That is welcome. It is a tribute to the efforts of the staff in the pursuit of excellence at Peterhead prison.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Prison Service staff in other prisons in Scotland, where there is a considerable amount of effort in circumstances that are often very difficult.

Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP): Is the Minister for Justice aware that the number of prisoners in Scotland has increased sharply in 2001? That applies particularly to women prisoners in Cornton Vale prison, which is still overcrowded, despite the reopening of Skye hall. On Friday 23 November, 250 women were in that prison. Is he also aware of the concerns about the situation, particularly the recent suicides, in Cornton Vale? Will he say when Labour will fulfil its 1998 commitment to

"limit the female population at Cornton Vale ... to 100 or less on a daily basis by the end of the year 2000"

Mr Wallace: As an eminent member of the Scottish bar, Roseanna Cunningham will know that the number of people in prisons is not entirely within the Executive's remit, given that the sheriffs who sentence them are not ministers. However, the Executive has made considerable efforts to ensure that alternatives to custody are available to sheriffs in the courts. The drug courts, which started this month, can make a contribution to that and the ministerial working group on women offenders, which has been under the chairmanship of my colleague Iain Gray over recent months, will make its final report in December.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con): Will the Minister for Justice say when the prison estates review, which is eagerly awaited throughout Scotland, will be published?

Mr Wallace: I had hoped that the prison estates review would be published by now. However, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has perhaps noticed, there has been a change of First Minister so it is only right that the proposals and the detail that goes with them should be brought to the new cabinet.

(S1F-1404) Voluntary Sector

2001-11-22T14:04:00.000Z

4. Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab): To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive will ensure that the voluntary sector is adequately resourced. (S1F-1404)

The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace): Scottish Executive support for the voluntary sector stands at record levels. Direct support of £39 million has been provided for 2001-02, which is an increase of 70 per cent since 1998-99. In addition, my colleague Jackie Baillie yesterday announced the distribution of £304 million of indirect support to be provided in this financial year to voluntary organisations through public bodies such as Communities Scotland, health boards and local enterprise companies. Following consultation, we are also examining with the sector how direct funding can be further improved.

The Presiding Officer: I call Christine Grahame. [Interruption.] I beg members' pardon—I call Stewart Stevenson. [Interruption.] I am sorry. Is Cathy Peattie going to ask a supplementary question?

Cathy Peattie: Yes.

The Presiding Officer: Please go ahead. That was my fault—I should have called Cathy Peattie first.

Cathy Peattie: As that money will go to agencies such as the health boards or Scottish Natural Heritage, will the acting First Minister give an assurance that it will reach the voluntary sector?

Mr Wallace: Yes. That money is clearly intended for the voluntary sector and those who are in receipt of it know that we expect that money to reach the voluntary sector.

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Is the acting First Minister aware that local rural partnerships, such as the Banffshire Partnership Ltd, are experiencing difficulties in obtaining payments under the objective 2 scheme? Those difficulties have been caused in particular by the fact that the rules for making such payments were finalised only after the closing date had passed for the submission of applications. That is a real hardship in continuing retention affecting partnerships. In other words, it is c-r-a-p—crap.

Mr Wallace: I am sorry that Mr Stevenson's final comments spoiled a genuine question. However, he raised an important matter that I was not aware of. I will ensure that the matter is brought to the attention of the relevant minister and we will try to find an answer to his question.

Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD): I draw the minister's attention to the voluntary sector's complaint about the amount of time that organisations spend chasing new funding. Does he agree that the main problem with voluntary sector funding is at local government level, given the deplorable lack of progress that local councils have made in putting in place longer-term core funding, in particular three-year funding? Is the Scottish Executive taking action to encourage or cajole local authorities to enter into longer-term arrangements with the voluntary sector?

Mr Wallace: I am well aware that much of the time and effort of people who have expertise to contribute is taken up in putting together funding packages. That is why the Executive encourages three-year funding for voluntary organisations. Indeed, as Robert Brown knows, we have given indicative funding to local authorities for a three-year period, which should, in turn, enable them to offer three-year funding to voluntary organisations.