Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Official Report 764KB pdf

---

Scottish Government Question Time

---

Topical Questions

---

Rape (Legal and Practical Definition)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to ensure that young people across Scotland have access to the relevant information regarding the legal and practical definition of rape. (S4T-00018)

We strengthened the law relating to rape through the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. That important legislation modernised and clarified the law to ensure that it was appropriate for a modern Scotland. It replaced the old common-law offence of rape with a wider statutory offence that more accurately reflects modern society’s understanding of what constitutes rape. It also provided, for the first time in Scots law, a simple, easy-to-understand definition of consent.

When the 2009 act was implemented in late 2010, we raised awareness of the reformed and modernised laws. In addition, awareness raising is on-going. For example, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highlighted a recent successful conviction of a man for rape under the 2009 act that related to the provisions that mean that if a victim removes consent during sexual intercourse and the accused continues, the crime is one of rape.

I can confirm that we are working within the curriculum for excellence and with specialist services to ensure that young people understand what sexual violence and rape are, and that the message is clear that such conduct is totally unacceptable. I will be attending and speaking at the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland rape prevention campaign launch event in Edinburgh on 13 September. That police-led campaign is designed to increase awareness of what constitutes rape and to challenge attitudes and opinions about rape, including specifically—but not exclusively—the attitudes of young men.

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the recent survey by the Havens charity that suggested that one in 20 males between the ages of 18 and 25 would try to have sex with a sleeping person? In light of that and George Galloway’s ignorant and distasteful comments, and in line with the Scottish Government’s commitment to preventative action, will the cabinet secretary consider offering direct funding to individual rape crisis centres across Scotland, which would give them greater freedom to respond to local issues?

The matter to which the member refers is an issue of great concern, which is why I ended my answer by saying that matters had to be dealt with especially with regard to young men.

The new legislation that the Parliament passed in 2009 is of benefit. It makes it quite clear what the definition of consent is; it also makes it clear that various matters that would not have been categorised as rape are now dealt with. Regardless of what may be suggested by any individuals, there are not different categories of rape. It is a heinous offence. If it is perpetrated in an extremely violent manner, that makes matters even worse, but the crime per se is entirely unacceptable in any shape or form, whoever it is perpetrated by and in whatever manner.

With regard to funding, the huge cuts from Westminster notwithstanding, this Government has committed £34.5 million to tackling violence against women, which represents an increase of more than 50 per cent. We are always keen to see what we can do to support significant ventures. Whether on rape crisis or violence against women, outstanding work is being done, so we are happy to look at such matters. The Government’s commitment, as embodied in its 50 per cent increase in funding, shows how we are putting our money where our mouth is.

---

Aberdeen City Council (Tax Increment Financing Applications)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether Aberdeen City Council has submitted any new tax increment financing applications since rejecting the business plan incorporating the city garden project. (S4T-00001)

The Scottish Government has not received any new tax increment financing applications since Aberdeen City Council rejected the business plan incorporating the city garden project.

The Labour-led administration has ignored the wishes of the majority of people who voted in a referendum for transformational change in the city. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the new TIF proposal will create transformational change?

We have not received any detailed information regarding Aberdeen City Council’s updated proposals for the city centre, but the invitation to the council was to submit a business case for a scheme incorporating the city garden project, which would lever in a substantial level of private sector funding—not just for any project in Aberdeen. It is simply not possible to transfer that invitation to a completely different project. In the future, the Scottish Government will consider rolling out TIF beyond the initial pilot projects, which included the original Union Terrace gardens. Any further TIF proposals would need to be considered if and when such a new round took place.

As the cabinet secretary said, the council has rejected £55 million of private investment. Does he agree that its proposals equate to the inverse Midas touch and will likely stymie future investment in the city from the private sector?

I totally agree with the member. The decision by the Labour group in Aberdeen is anti-investment, anti-progress and anti-democratic.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the chief executive of Aberdeen City Council has written to the Scottish Futures Trust to ask that it confirms its willingness to consider an amendment to the application for TIF? Will he further confirm that the TIF application guidelines that were issued to Aberdeen City Council and other local authorities did not include any requirement for private sector funding per se? Will he give an assurance to the people of Aberdeen and the north-east that he and the Scottish Futures Trust will consider any amendment to the TIF application on its merits?

I have made it absolutely clear that the essential element in the TIF application was the Union Terrace gardens project. If that is not included in any business case submitted by Aberdeen City Council, it cannot be considered.

Lewis Macdonald omitted to mention that at the time of the TIF pilot scheme launch, the cabinet secretary announced that the Aberdeen TIF would be required to demonstrate public support in order to proceed. The city garden project demonstrated public support through the city-wide referendum, but the current hotch-potch, back-of-an-envelope proposal not only has been untested by referendum, but did not feature in a single manifesto at the recent local council elections. Does the cabinet secretary consider that the Labour-led administration’s alternative proposals have in any way met the public support test?

When we announced which councils had been invited to prepare full TIF business cases for ministers’ consideration last year, we said that Aberdeen City Council’s plan to use TIF for the Union Terrace gardens project would be progressed if public support for the project could be demonstrated. That support was demonstrated in the referendum that took place, in which 45,301 votes were cast in favour of the project and 41,175 opposed the plans. The invitation to submit a business case was for that specific project—read my lips: it was for that specific project—for which public support was demonstrated, and not just for any project in Aberdeen. I repeat: there is no possibility of approving an amended TIF that does not include the central feature of the original proposal.

Is it not the case that the fact that the Scottish Government will not consider any variance of the TIF proposal is simply sour grapes from the SNP, which is determined to punish the council for daring to reject the SNP’s preferred plan—which would have involved hundreds of millions of pounds of debt for the council—even if it punishes Aberdeen at the same time?

The people who are punishing Aberdeen are the Labour people who are running Aberdeen. Not only are they punishing Aberdeen, but they are taking this decision in defiance of the democratic wish of the people of Aberdeen, so I will not take any lessons from anyone on the Labour benches. This is far from being sour grapes, and I suggest that the member stops whistling in the wind.

We are talking about sour grapes. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Labour Party has made a laughing stock of Aberdeen? I am hearing from people that Aberdeen is the city that likes to say no. Is that the image that we want for our energy capital of Europe?

The Labour Party has made a laughing stock of itself and it will be punished appropriately at the ballot box by the people of Aberdeen.