SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
General Questions
Question 1 is withdrawn through illness.
Judicial Processes
To ask the Scottish Executive how it ensures that judicial processes remain independent of government. (S2O-10772)
I am firmly committed to the principle that Scotland should have a strong independent judiciary that is able to discharge its functions free from external influence. In our consultation paper, "Strengthening Judicial Independence in a Modern Scotland", which we published in February this year, we set out a range of proposals for legislation to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.
I assure the minister that I had no advance notice of the Lord Advocate's intended resignation. The debate on the position will be on-going over the next few weeks and months.
It is important that we have an independent prosecution service. With that independence comes recognition that it is not for politicians to intervene in decisions that are taken by independent prosecutors. When decisions are taken that people do not like, they can find them hard to understand, but independence is a fundamental feature of the judicial process.
An independent judiciary is one of the pillars of our democracy. However, does the minister agree that members of the judiciary are also public servants who are paid out of public funds and are subject to the relevant legislative processes? No one would seek to impinge on their ultimate right to determine a sentence, but surely the Scottish Parliament also has the right to expect members of the judiciary to adhere to the broad sentencing guidelines that it has laid down for particular crimes? Does the minister also agree that the general behaviour of members of the judiciary should be subject to scrutiny without recourse to the nuclear option, which is the only option that is available to us at present?
I am sure that Mr MacAskill will continue to make those points in responding to the proposals in our paper and engaging in the work that is to come. On sentencing, it is important to recognise that we now have the Sentencing Commission for Scotland report, which recommends the possibility of moving towards some kind of sentencing council or committee that would consider guidelines. At the end of the day, it is important to stress that there is no suggestion that anyone will interfere in the right of the judiciary, having considered all the facts that has been put before it, to decide on a sentence that is appropriate to the circumstances.
Does the minister accept that the independence of the office of the Lord Advocate was compromised by Colin Boyd's being a member of the Cabinet, in which he shared collective Cabinet responsibility, and the head of Scotland's independent prosecution service? Does she agree that the Lord Advocate's resignation provides the ideal opportunity to end that dual role?
I do not accept that the Lord Advocate was unable to carry out his role as the independent head of the prosecution service in Scotland. I believe that Colin Boyd has done a tremendous job in the modernisation of our justice system. Some of the attacks that were made on him yesterday were completely unfounded and unnecessary. I hope that Parliament will acknowledge the good work that he has done. There will be opportunities for debates on the post of Lord Advocate in the future. The suggestion that the Lord Advocate was unable to carry out his duties as the independent head of the prosecution service is unwarranted.
Ferry Crossings (Islay)
To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of a report to Highlands and Islands Enterprise stating that an extra £1.3 million was generated for the Islay economy through the initiative to increase the number of ferry crossings during the summer, whether it has any plans to extend the initiative to cover the full duration of the Caledonian MacBrayne summer timetable. (S2O-10719)
We are considering the scope for including some service enhancements in the final service specification for the tendering of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services. Decisions will be announced shortly when we issue the invitation to tender for the services.
Does the minister agree that the trial clearly illustrates the major benefits to the island economies of an increase in ferry crossings? Bearing that in mind, will he consider similar trials for other crossings, such as those in the Western Isles?
I confirm that, following representations from many individuals and organisations in the islands—and, indeed, from George Lyon, who is the local MSP—we are considering lengthening the period of the two-vessel operation on the routes to Islay as one of the enhancements. We will take the matter forward when the service specification is produced and we issue the invitation to tender.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer, George Lyon is not the local MSP for the Western Isles.
You have got that on the record, although I think that the minister probably indicated that.
Disabled Access (Railway Stations)
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to improve disabled access at railway stations. (S2O-10782)
Through the access for all programme, which was announced in August, we will provide up to £12 million during the next three years for Network Rail to improve access at stations. In addition, the First ScotRail franchise includes an annual minor works programme of £250,000 per year for small-scale work to improve disabled access at stations.
The minister will be aware that I wrote to him recently about disabled access at stations in my constituency of North East Fife—in particular, there is no disabled access to the southbound platform at Cupar station. When will stations such as Cupar be able to bid for the access for all money to gain disabled access? If they are unable to introduce disabled access through that fund, are there any other funding opportunities that can be considered? I am sure that the minister appreciates that creating such access will cost more than £250,000 at most stations.
I appreciate Iain Smith's point about Cupar station, which is similar to the arguments that are being made about many stations on Scotland's rail network.
The minister will be aware that it is mainly old rural railway stations that have little or no disabled access, including Gleneagles station in my constituency, where there is none. Can the minister assure us that, in future discussions about possible station closures, lack of disabled access will not be used as a justification or an excuse for closing a railway station when alternative investment should have been made?
The simple answer is that we do not have any plans to close railway stations; indeed, we are expanding the rail network across Scotland. We are opening stations and augmenting the railway network across the country, so I would be surprised if Ms Cunningham was trying to suggest that we are closing stations. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Does the minister agree that it is unacceptable that disabled residents in Shotts are denied the opportunity to travel independently by rail because access to the eastbound platform of the station is at the bottom of a steep set of stairs? Will he assure me that Transport Scotland will, as a matter of urgency, work with Strathclyde partnership for transport and First ScotRail to ensure that the proposed disabled access, which has been talked about for the past 18 months, becomes a reality?
I respect Karen Whitefield's point. It is clear that the situation that she described is unacceptable, so we need to find ways to move things forward. As I said, we are using not just the access for all fund, but Transport Scotland's small rail projects fund, the First ScotRail franchise and major project funding to seek to move the matter forward. I certainly undertake to look into Karen Whitefield's point about Shotts station to see whether we can find a solution to the problem, which has clearly existed for some time.
Health Services (Clydesdale)
To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to improve health services in Clydesdale. (S2O-10747)
I have recently approved plans, with a number of additional requirements, for modernisation of health services across Lanarkshire. I have required that the provision of a community casualty unit in Lanark be brought forward, and other planned changes include the replacement of the health centre at Carluke and investment in a new purpose-built community hospital to serve the Clydesdale area.
I thank the minister for his answer and assure him that my constituency welcomes the investment. Will the minister assure me that changes to the health service configuration in other parts of Lanarkshire will not be put ahead of the much-needed services in my constituency, and that a balance will be struck to ensure that all patients in Lanarkshire get the services that they deserve? In particular, can he assure me that a community casualty facility will be equally able to take away from the front door of Wishaw general hospital people who do not require that high level of accident and emergency service?
The intention of the proposals and the additional requirements is that the best-quality health service will be provided for residents throughout Lanarkshire. Part of that will be that the five community casualty units, including the one at Lanark, will take the majority of people who currently present at accident and emergency units, and that those CCUs should be providing that service before any change to the configuration of the existing accident and emergency services.
Home Renewables Systems
To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to encourage incorporation of renewable energy based heat and power systems and rainwater capture systems in both existing and new-build housing. (S2O-10790)
The Executive has committed to producing a renewable heat strategy for Scotland by the end of 2007. However, we are already taking action on several fronts. Communities Scotland is encouraging the use of sustainable design principles in all housing developments. For example, 100 homes in Aviemore will have heating and hot water provided by a new biomass energy centre.
I thank the minister for her answer. Recently a member of the public in my region attempted to build a house with a rainwater capture system but was refused planning permission on the basis that the system might not suit the preferences of future occupiers of the house. Although I do not expect the minister to comment on an individual application, does she think that that approach tallies with the Executive's commitment to ensuring that our planning laws work to improve the environment for all? How will she ensure that planners share her commitment to environmentally friendly buildings?
Members will know about our planning modernisation proposals and I hope that they will find it in their hearts to support them. They are designed to liberate the planning system from the grind that many planners experience between communities and developers. We are liberating planning so that it can address such questions, use modern technologies, consider the ways in which communities want their buildings to be more effective, and give planners the time to do all that.
In her first answer, the minister said that she was going to review guidelines to encourage greater use of the heat and power systems that were mentioned in Eleanor Scott's question. Does not she believe that there is a compelling case for going much further than that to ensure that the planning regulations and building control advice that are issued by the Executive are mandatory, in order to encourage much wider improvement in the housing standards that are applied for renewable energy purposes?
We know that people who are persuaded by an argument are more likely to be committed to a course of action than those who are forced to it. A balance has to be struck between voluntary commitment and mandatory action. We have struck that balance through the Scottish Building Standards Agency's on-going work to encourage people to use sustainable design, and through the good advice that is given by Communities Scotland. We will continue to keep under review whether sufficient has been done, whether people have engaged with the issue fully and whether mandatory approaches might be necessary. However, as I said, we are mindful of the fact that engaging and persuading people is far more likely to be effective. Certainly, the Scottish Building Standards Agency's sustainability guide to home improvements seeks to capture the energy that people have shown for working in this area.
Wind Energy
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware that the Renewable Devices Swift Rooftop Wind Energy System is available in Australia but not in Scotland and, if so, whether it is content with this situation. (S2O-10787)
The Swift Rooftop Wind Energy System has been installed in a number of locations with support from the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative. I understand that refinements have been made to the system and that it is currently being monitored in a number of locations across Scotland before being made more widely available.
As the minister said, the Swift turbines have already been approved for SCHRI grant funding and are successfully generating electricity in numerous locations, so why is Scottish and Southern Energy plc apparently still telling people that the system is not yet available? Given that public money has been invested in Renewable Devices, is the minister prepared to intervene to ensure that the 26 direct green jobs and up to 500 indirect green jobs in this fledgling Scottish industry are protected?
As Robin Harper points out, this is a success story. The Executive provided Renewable Devices with funding through the small firms merit award for research and technology—SMART—and support for products under research—SPUR—schemes. The company was named the best new business at the Scottish green energy awards. It has now entered into a contract with Scottish and Southern Energy, which expects to place approximately 2,000 orders for the system, worth up to £9 million. At the moment, the key issue is the testing of the equipment and the resolution of issues between SSE and Renewable Devices, but those are not issues on which I should comment. However, I believe that the product will be a major success story for Scotland and that we will start to see Swift systems not only in their current locations—in Fife, on Berwickshire Housing Association and Canmore Housing Association buildings and at the Scottish Seabird Centre—but on many public buildings and private houses throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom and, increasingly, around the world.
Forth Valley Hospital Public-private Partnership
To ask the Scottish Executive whether funding the new Forth valley hospital at Larbert through a public-private partnership is an example of privatisation of the national health service. (S2O-10726)
No.
It comes as no surprise that the minister should give that answer, but is he aware of the wide-ranging concern that has been expressed even by Labour members in Forth valley and by trade unions about Forth Valley NHS Board's decision to privatise the jobs of some 700 soft-furnishing staff when they move to the new hospital at the Larbert site? Is he also aware of Forth Valley NHS Board members' concern that the Executive's guidance on the financial modelling of the new hospital is heavily in favour of a private finance initiative outcome?
I am unaware of the curtain and soft-furnishing arrangements inside the new hospital. The Scottish Executive makes decisions on behalf of patients. The 860-bed hospital for that community will be delivered in a way that is controlled by the public sector. We decide how many beds it should have, the clinical mix and all the rules around the provision of the hospital.
Will the minister confirm that any transfer of soft-service jobs in the new hospital will be done under Scottish Trades Union Congress protocols to ensure the terms and conditions of the workers involved?
Of course the employees—this is the way that we work in the health service in Scotland—will be involved in a partnership process. The workforce would have wanted the tender to be won in-house, but there was a sizeable—multimillion pounds—difference between the bids of the in-house workforce and the private sector provider.
Previous
Senior Citizens