SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
General Questions
Sexual Orientation<br />(Prejudice and Discrimination)
To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to tackle prejudice and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. (S2O-10426)
We are taking measures to tackle prejudice and discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in a range of areas including health, education and local government more generally. To develop further our approach to addressing the causes of prejudice and discrimination in Scotland, we have established a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender hearts and minds agenda group. It will examine social attitudes to LGBT people in Scotland and provide the Executive with specific recommendations on how we can challenge prejudice and tackle discrimination towards LGBT people.
Yesterday, the First Minister said to the Parliament:
I hope that we are showing that same leadership, because we have a strong commitment to the whole equalities agenda. That is manifested in several pieces of work that have been done on prejudice and discrimination against LGBT people.
Ship-to-ship Oil Transfers (Firth of Forth)
To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government in respect of the application by Forth Ports plc for consent for ship-to-ship transfers of oil cargoes in the Firth of Forth. (S2O-10431)
The Scottish Executive is in regular contact with the UK Government on a number of issues, including the application by Forth Ports plc for Maritime and Coastguard Agency approval for the oil spill contingency plan that is associated with the proposed ship-to-ship transfer of oil cargoes in the Firth of Forth that Forth Ports is considering.
Surely we are entitled to insist on the most rigorous safeguards for the Scottish coastline. What is the sense of creating a risk of disastrous pollution in the Firth of Forth by allowing trans-shipments of Russian oil between foreign ships that are bound for other countries, which will not create a single job in Scotland? Will the minister ask Allan Wilson, her colleague, to put it to Charles Hammond, the chairman of Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, that SEEL's responsibility for economic development is not compatible with the creation of a serious risk to a wide range of businesses in the Lothians and Fife for the sake of short-term gain by Forth Ports plc, whose chief executive is the same Charles Hammond?
I agree absolutely with John Home Robertson that the protection of our coastline is paramount. That is why Scottish Natural Heritage and the Executive have repeatedly pressed Forth Ports and gained assurances from it on its responsibilities as a competent authority under the habitats directive.
I am grateful to John Home Robertson for lodging the question and I share many of his concerns.
I am aware from press reports that an approach has been made to the Commission, but the Executive has not received anything from the Commission. I will keep the member informed on that. When we receive information from the Commission, we will respond to it. I would not want to say what our response will be, because I have not yet seen the letter from the Commission. It is the responsibility of Scottish ministers to ensure that the requirements of the habitats directive are met. We will take advice from Scottish Natural Heritage on that.
It has clearly been a busy summer, because I have been locked in a frustrating, unsuccessful battle with Forth Ports to get it to release information on how our protected wildlife is at risk from the oil-transfer proposals. The most recent, revised environmental impact assessment is still not in the public domain. Has the minister seen it yet? What analysis of it will she commission to establish whether the EIA complies with Forth Ports' responsibilities and her own legal responsibilities?
No, I have not seen the revised EIA documentation, but I understand that SNH has been provided with a copy of it. I will take advice from SNH.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will examine the case for adding the Japanese Akita to the types of dog proscribed under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. (S2O-10443)
I am aware of the recent horrific attack by a Japanese Akita on a six-year-old child in the member's constituency. I wish him a speedy recovery and extend my sympathies to the family. I understand that the police have sent a report about the incident to the procurator fiscal in Greenock and a decision is awaited.
I thank the minister for the sympathy he has expressed for my six-year-old constituent, Stephen McCallum, who was savaged by an Akita while riding his bike, and to his family. I am disappointed that there are no plans to examine the matter. What has to happen before we take such action? Do we need to wait until a more serious event, injury or—God forbid—death? A cursory glance through the press reports shows that the latest attack is not an isolated incident. Therefore, is it not important to establish whether those dogs are being unfairly singled out by the media or are inherently dangerous? Can officials not, at the very least, collate reports sent to the police or the procurator fiscal regarding offences under the 1991 act?
Ministers have order-making powers for the purpose of proscribing dogs under section 1 of the 1991 act. To use those powers, ministers would need to be provided with evidence that attacks by a specific type of dog were on the increase and would need to justify the stricter controls that are placed on such dogs, such as neutering and muzzling in public places. In the first instance, ministers would look to the police to suggest that the list of proscribed dogs be extended, based on an increase in attacks by a specific type of dog. This is the first complaint about a Japanese Akita that the Scottish Executive has received. We have not received any requests from the police to add to the proscribed list of dangerous dogs. However, we will keep the situation under review and will discuss the matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
Smoking Ban<br />(Noise, Litter and Antisocial Behaviour)
To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to address any increased level of noise, litter and antisocial behaviour outside public houses and other licensed premises directly resulting from the legislation prohibiting smoking in public places. (S2O-10418)
Local authorities and the police have existing powers that enable them to handle any such problems and, together with the Scottish Executive, will keep those issues under review.
I have had a number of complaints from constituents about the problem. Does the minister believe that it is fair or just that one of the consequences of the legislation is that, through no fault of their own, non-customers of licensed premises are being subjected to noise levels and disturbances that did not happen previously?
First, there is no evidence of public disorder. I accept that there is anecdotal evidence—the member has just given me some on noise. Individuals should take up the matter with the licence holder or proprietor of the institution. If that is not successful, individuals should take up the matter with the local authority or the police. Those are the most appropriate steps forward. I have visited other countries with a smoking ban such as ours, and those issues were discussed. Significant problems had not been detected in countries in which the ban had been in place for longer. However, the Scottish Executive is responsible in how it legislates and will continue to monitor the situation. My first advice is for anyone affected by the issue to get in touch with the proprietor or, if that does not resolve the issue, the local authority.
Does the minister agree that litter dropping, antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance are not new and that, rather than being a direct result of the smoking ban, they are the result of individuals' attitudes? Does he further agree that the upside of the smoking ban outweighs, by many thousandfold, the small inconveniences that may be caused by some people who do not take their role in society seriously?
I agree with much of that but we must understand and be sympathetic to those who may be affected by the legislation. The public health consequences of the legislation far outweigh those issues; nonetheless, families will be affected by the legislation in the way in which Ted Brocklebank described. The problems are not insurmountable and can be resolved. I go back to my previous point, which was that individuals should speak to the proprietor and to the local authority. Things can be done about such situations if they arise. Evidence from all around the world is that the issues are not insurmountable, and routes are available for individuals to resolve such matters more appropriately.
Sports Facilities
To ask the Scottish Executive what support it gives for the provision of sports facilities. (S2O-10406)
The Executive is investing £28.8 million in the national and regional facilities strategy to support the development of multisport facilities across Scotland.
The minister is aware from the "National Audit of Scotland's Sports Facilities" of upgrade and maintenance costs of £306 million a year for the next 25 years. Given the Labour-Liberal Democrat Government's stated aim of improving the fitness and health of Scots, what additional measures does it intend to introduce to plug the funding gap? What financial assistance will be given to Fife Council to upgrade and renew Fife institute and the Carnegie leisure centre and to provide a new swimming pool for Kirkcaldy?
The report to which Tricia Marwick refers identifies a number of issues, all of which are of great interest, and in some cases concern, to me and the Scottish Executive. The results of the report show why we commissioned it in the first place, so we will work with partners to take it forward. It is important to remind members that the initial responsibility for providing such facilities lies with local authorities. One of the interesting points that came out of the report was that not enough money had been spent on on-going maintenance of many facilities, particularly those that were built recently. That is an issue that we have been reminding local authorities about.
Will the minister confirm that there is a good working relationship between Fife Council, her officials and the national agencies, which has already resulted in considerable funding for leisure and sports facilities in my constituency in Fife? Will she confirm that, as I discussed with her earlier this year, the regional assistance that might be available for facilities such as those in Glenrothes could be a matter for on-going discussion?
I am happy to confirm that there is a good working relationship between officials in Fife Council, in the Executive and, of course, in sportscotland. It is worth pointing out that, since 1995, facilities in Fife have benefited from around £6.5 million in awards made, including £500,000 for a synthetic pitch at Wade academy, £200,000 for Dalgety Bay bowling club, and £500,000 for the Pitreavie indoor athletics facility. Through the new opportunities for physical education and sport funding, Markinch primary school received more than £77,000 for a multi-use games area, and 26 projects in Mid Scotland and Fife have benefited from funding from the same fund. That includes £485,000 for synthetic pitches and floodlights at Balwearie high school and £68,000 for a multi-use games area at Kippen primary school.
The minister may be aware that, this coming Saturday in Beauly, the shinty teams of Fort William and Glenorchy will battle it out for the Sutherland cup, which is an important fixture in shinty's annual calendar. What is the Executive doing to provide more facilities for shinty and to give general encouragement to the game in Scotland?
Mr McGrigor may have noted from my previous response that one of the things that we are keen to do is to ensure that, where facilities are provided, they can be used for as many purposes as is sensibly possible. When we build multi-use games areas, the needs of those who wish to play shinty are, of course, taken into account. I am aware that the Sutherland cup event is taking place this weekend. In fact, I attended that fixture last year and am sorry that I will not be able to attend it this year, because I will be attending UK school sports events in Glasgow over the weekend.
Roadside Verges (Litter)
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will consider introducing the adopt-a-highway scheme used in the United States of America, whereby roadside verges are kept free of litter with the voluntary help of individuals and organisations. (S2O-10466)
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a statutory duty on various bodies to keep roads clear of litter. Adopt-a-highway schemes clearly have attractions, but they also have health and safety implications that would require consideration if the responsible bodies wished to introduce them.
Adopt-a-highway projects are worth pursuing, because they increase civic responsibility. Will the minister consider discussing the matter with the relevant companies?
I would be happy to do so. The burden of what I said in my first reply is that those companies have a statutory responsibility to keep verges free of litter, and I would be reluctant to encourage them to believe that they might be relieved of that responsibility. Nevertheless, I share Mr Arbuckle's point that civic responsibility is something that we would wish to encourage.
Youth Work
To ask the Scottish Executive how its plans for youth work in Scotland will enhance the personal, social and educational development of young people and enable them to gain a voice, influence and a place in society. (S2O-10468)
Youth work has a key role in enhancing the personal, social and educational development of young people. We want to develop that role in empowering young people to become confident individuals, effective contributors, successful learners and responsible citizens—the key outcomes set out in "A Curriculum for Excellence". A consultation on youth work is currently under way with a view to publishing a youth work strategy.
I welcome the publication of the consultation paper on youth work. Does the minister agree that the consultation gives us all an opportunity to promote the many positive contributions that the majority of our young people make in their communities, instead of demonising all young people for the behaviour of a small minority? What will he do to ensure that young people are fully engaged in the debate on the future of youth work?
I very much agree with Mr Smith. We want to encourage youth work throughout Scotland to contribute of its best and we want to consult youth organisations and young people more generally. Young Scot is consulting young people through its online portal, dialogue youth units and youth information networks. The Scottish Youth Parliament is also involved through its network. We provide a number of grants to smaller organisations to consult hard-to-reach groups. YouthLink Scotland is also organising information sessions for youth workers and volunteers throughout the country.
Previous
Education