Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 8, 2008


Contents


Question Time


SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE


Rural Affairs and the Environment


Scotland Rural Development Programme (Small Farmers and Crofters)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assistance is available for small farmers and crofters in the Highlands and Islands who wish to access funds from the Scottish rural development programme. (S3O-3187)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

I am sure that the member will be delighted to hear that small farmers and crofters in the Highlands and Islands will have at least as much, and perhaps more, access to funding than other rural businesses. They will be eligible for rural development contracts for regional priorities, rural development contracts for land managers' options, forestry challenge funds, LEADER funding, the food processing, marketing and co-operation scheme, less favoured area support and the crofting counties agricultural grant scheme; that is, seven out of the eight elements of the Scotland rural development programme. Even the eighth element of the programme—the skills development scheme—may support organisations to set up a training initiative to benefit crofters.

Rhoda Grant:

The minister will be aware that small crofters and farmers are the backbone of rural communities. This Government has cut funding to the crofters and farmers who take seriously their environmental obligations. It has prevented many of them from applying for alternative funding through the Scottish rural development programme by excluding those who cannot apply online. In the meantime, those who form themselves into groups can get assistance from the Crofters Commission and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and those who can afford it can buy assistance in applying, but—again—the most needy will suffer. What is the minister going to do about that problem?

Michael Russell:

I am going to try to be positive about all the opportunities that exist. I am sorry to say that Rhoda Grant appears to take a glass-half-empty view of life.

I have discussed these issues at length with the Scottish Crofting Foundation and others, and know that they are aware that the opportunities are great. The way to take advantage of those opportunities is to encourage people to apply, not to say that funds have been cut when they have not been cut, and to look at the potential and the possibilities of the scheme. If Rhoda Grant were to do that, I am sure that the mood in the Highlands and Islands would be brighter than her own.


Flooding

To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the call by the Association of British Insurers, what plans it has to stop developments designated as being at high risk of flooding across Scotland. (S3O-3181)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

This is clearly an important issue for Helen Eadie. She will recall that she and I discussed flooding earlier this year and that she is due to meet me again next Thursday. In March, she asked seven written parliamentary questions on flood risk and coastal planning, and I have previously answered two oral parliamentary questions from her on the subject. Next week, we are due to provide answers to a further 38 written parliamentary questions on the subject. This is an issue that is dear to her heart. More specifically, it is also near to her home.

Turning to the substance of the question, Scottish planning policy 7 includes a risk framework that sets out the planning response to developments that are proposed in areas of high flood risk. The Association of British Insurers was a key consultee during its preparation and fully endorsed the risk framework approach.

Helen Eadie:

The minister might not know, but I live a good 40 minutes' walk from the particular site in question. The development that we are discussing was recommended for refusal on one occasion by the local authority and was about to be recommended again for refusal when the Scottish Executive's reporter said that it would be approved.

The minister needs to look at the photographs that I sent to him earlier this week, which show that houses, flats and a bistro are about to be built on an area of infill land that is at high risk of flooding. The photographs provide a shocking and devastating account of that. It will be on your watch, minister, that those homes are placed at risk.

Could we have a question, please?

I ask the minister to study carefully, when he meets me, the photographs that I have sent you and that you consider withdrawing the approval for building permission.

I was not planning to meet you, Ms Eadie, but I am sure that the minister will answer accordingly.

Michael Russell:

I admire persistence wherever it is shown. However, persistence should not fly in the face of facts. For example, many of the written parliamentary questions that have been submitted by the member on the subject reflect planning and flooding issues and the language and legislation on planning and flooding that apply south of the border, but not in Scotland. They do not show a sound understanding either of the Scottish position or of the issue. I am sorry to say that. I am also sorry to say that the purpose of the question is exactly what the chamber has just heard—to try to spread alarm and despondency where there should be none.

The effect of section 48(6) of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 is that once a reporter has issued a decision on an appeal, that decision is final. Neither he or she, the Scottish ministers, nor anybody else has any further jurisdiction on the matter. That means that it is not possible for the Scottish ministers, the appointed reporter, or the directorate for planning and environmental appeals to comment on the merits of the appeals, other than to say that the reporters' decisions were based on the evidence that was presented at the public local inquiries, and on all written submissions by the parties involved. That is the fact of the matter.

John Scott (Ayr) (Con):

I declare an interest. The minister has outlined his views on the need not to build on flood plains when doing so is avoidable, as outlined in SPP 7. Given the need once again to maximise food production from our best land, can he outline what measures the Government will take to incentivise farmers both to grow food and to allow flood plains to again be used as natural flood defences?

Michael Russell:

That is a good and pertinent question and it needs to be dealt with in the context of the report of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, of which John Scott is the deputy convener. It should also be dealt with in any consideration of the flooding bill, and be taken into account in the bill itself. I do not think the amount of land in question is as large as some people have claimed. However, the way in which we encourage land managers and landowners—and tenants of land—to ensure that that land is available for sustainable or natural flood defences is a key issue. I look forward to a constructive engagement on that issue with Mr Scott and with the chamber.

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab):

Does the minister believe that there should be an obligation on developers that are building in areas where there might be a risk of flooding to disclose what the flood risk is as part of the assessment process, and to give people a clear indication of the degree of security they might realistically expect?

Michael Russell:

That is also a positive approach, which has been mentioned and discussed in committee. In principle, I would welcome that approach. It is important that there is full disclosure, but we must remember that indicative flood maps are indicative and are not, in fact, an indication of the likelihood, or possibility, of actual flooding in any property. There are issues to be considered, but in general I would welcome that approach. I hope that it will be something the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee reflects upon, after which we will see how we can bring it forward in terms of legislation.


Environmental Justice (Local Authorities)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with local authorities about the issue of environmental justice. (S3O-3193)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

The Scottish Government has not had any discussions with local authorities specifically on that issue.

With her background, I am sure that Johann Lamont will recognise that the concept of environmental justice is widely embracing and is now largely mainstreamed across a range of policies. A discussion in that context takes place regularly.

The concordat that has been agreed between the Government and Scotland's local authorities—in particular our joint endeavour to deliver our national outcomes—will lead to the steady extension of environmental justice to all sections of our society.

Johann Lamont:

Does the minister acknowledge the anxiety in some quarters that environmental issues are viewed as a rural rather than an urban issue? That is despite the fact that urban areas such as the one that I represent have suffered disproportionately from environmental depredation—large-scale and due to living with the consequences of, for example, disorder. Will the minister confirm whether the environmental justice budget still exists, which was introduced to address that matter? What funding is available to address environmental issues in urban communities, and what share of the environment budget is directed at dealing with communities that have to live with bad-neighbour development?

Michael Russell:

I agree with Johann Lamont that environmental injustice and degradation is an urban as well as a rural issue. More people are probably affected in urban areas than in rural areas, which is why attention must be paid to it as part of the general activity that we undertake under a whole range of matters, including waste, transport, housing improvements—as Johann Lamont mentioned—quality of life improvements, regeneration, green space, flooding, health issues, how decision making takes place in communities, and learning. We are addressing the issues in all those areas.

Funding of £2 million was provided in financial year 2007-08 for the environmental justice scheme. We will provide funding totalling £18.8 million over the next three years for the climate challenge fund, which will be directed firmly towards communities. It will support mechanisms that will be put in place to ensure that communities that have a limited capacity to engage will be able to become involved.


Environmental Impact Assessments

To ask the Scottish Executive what criteria determine whether an environmental impact assessment should be undertaken. (S3O-3238)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

The amended EIA directive 85/227/EEC sets out projects to which the directive applies.

Projects of the types listed in annex I must always be subject to environmental impact assessment. Projects of the types listed in annex II, as I am sure the member is aware, must be subject to environmental impact assessment whenever they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.

Sandra White:

The minister will be aware of the proposed development by Tesco at Partick in Glasgow, which attracted over 1,000 objections and a request by Glasgow City Council that an EIA be carried out. It was refused. Is the minister aware that the plans for the development were changed and resubmitted on numerous occasions? Does he agree that if substantial changes are made to development plans, a fresh EIA should be sought?

Michael Russell:

I am sure that Sandra White will appreciate that it is impossible for me to be drawn on individual planning issues and that it would be unwise. In general, I make it clear that it would be unwise for this minister to be so drawn—as it has always been unwise for previous ministers—although it is a pity that Labour members do not seem to recognise that.

The reality of the situation is that being a good neighbour in a general sense means that one should be sensitive to the opinions of those with whom one will be situated. Therefore, providing information on environmental impacts would be good and neighbourly practice for any developer whose development was meeting significant opposition.


Glasgow Airport (Noise Impact)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has had discussions with the United Kingdom Government with regard to bringing in regulation at Glasgow airport aimed at reducing the noise impact on residents living under the flight path. (S3O-3234)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

I acknowledge Gil Paterson's long-standing interest in the matter and his effective work with the people who are affected.

In the context of the EU environmental noise directive, the Scottish Government has had extensive discussions with the UK Government about noise from airports. Under the terms of the directive, the major airports, including Glasgow international airport, are required to produce action plans designed to manage noise issues and effects. The draft action plan for Glasgow airport is due to be published for consultation shortly. The member will note that I also met the UK Noise Association to discuss those and other issues on 25 March 2008.

Gil Paterson:

Most people who live in and around airports appreciate that there will always be noise at airports. When the British Airports Authority was privatised, the right of regulation of Scottish airports went to that private company, although the Government accepted regulation of London airports. Many people feel that self-regulation is not effective.

Will the Scottish Government talk to the UK Government and use its influence to bring regulation of Scottish airports—Glasgow airport in particular—under Government control? Action might then be taken and some respite from the noise granted, as has been the case around London airports.

Michael Russell:

The member raises a good, interesting but complex issue. There is no evidence that noise at Glasgow airport exceeds the 66dB level, which is regarded as the level that would trigger the need for mitigation measures, such as insulation schemes. That evidence would be needed before any such scheme could be considered. As far as we are aware, no residents live in a contour above the 66dB limit.

Some airports are designated under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to take measures to control aircraft noise—Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports are the only three in the UK that are so designated. The other airports are not designated. A wide range of circumstances are taken into account, of which noise level is the principal one. No formal criteria exist for designation—each case must be considered on its merits.

The Scottish ministers have the power to designate airports in Scotland. I am willing to discuss the issue with Gil Paterson, within the confines of what I have said, and bearing in mind that Glasgow international airport has put in place measures to reduce noise. The latest set of contour maps for the airport, which were produced in 2007, show that noise levels have fallen compared with 2002 and 1990. Modern quieter aircraft are part of the reason for that.

Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab):

One concern of people in areas—such as Whitecrook, Drumry and Linnvale—of my constituency that are particularly affected by aircraft noise is that noise monitoring is based not in the areas that are most directly affected, but further away. Will the minister consider that? Will he also consider the times of flights? One issue that concerns people is that flights are starting earlier and ending later, with more weekend flights. Those changes are part and parcel of the disruption that affects people in those areas of Clydebank and in a substantial number of other areas in my parliamentary constituency.

Michael Russell:

Des McNulty is right to draw attention to the matter, because noise is a considerable pollutant to which we must pay strong attention. The Government is strongly taking forward work on the effects of noise pollution. We have undertaken noise mapping in advance of the rest of the UK. The Glasgow airport maps are produced independently of the airport operator, so we should have some confidence in them. However, I am happy to meet the member to discuss how monitoring can be stepped up. I presume that he is in constant touch with BAA and individual airlines to ensure that concerns are addressed. The Government expects aircraft and airport operators to achieve a reasonable balance between their legitimate operations and the interests of those who live nearby and who are affected by noise pollution.


Environment

To ask the Scottish Executive how its policy decisions will improve the environment. (S3O-3186)

Through successfully delivering our greener strategic objective, we will improve Scotland's natural and built environment and our sustainable use and enjoyment of it.

Charlie Gordon:

Can the minister say, from the corporate point of view, how the Scottish Government proposes to offset the environmental effects of recent policy decisions? For example, we all know that de-tolling the Forth road bridge will cause an increase in CO2 emissions. Are such issues considered in the round?

Michael Russell:

They are considered in the round, closely and thoughtfully. All our actions must be judged on the basis of our policy objectives. We aim to have a greener Scotland, to ensure that we have not just economic growth, but sustainable economic growth and to meet the ambitious targets that we are setting, for example, on CO2 emissions. I know that Mr Gordon will be a strong supporter of all the Government's actions that are making absolutely certain that we meet those objectives, and we welcome him on board in undertaking that task.


Sustainability

To ask the Scottish Executive how its environmental policies are improving Scotland's sustainability. (S3O-3212)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

The Scottish Government's overall purpose is

"To focus government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth."

In the 2007 Scottish budget and spending review document, which I seem to recall Karen Whitefield did not vote against, we set out how a greener Scotland will play its part. Work includes focusing spending on reducing our impact on our local and global environment; protecting and enhancing our natural and built environment; making much better use of our substantial renewable energy resource; reducing climate change emissions from transport, housing and business; and improving Scotland's record on waste management and recycling. Through pursuit of those and other complementary policy initiatives, we will improve Scotland's sustainability.

Karen Whitefield:

I am grateful to the minister for his fine words—I expected nothing less than fine words from him. However, does he agree that the Government must do more than talk a good game and that it needs to act and show leadership. Does he regret the Government's decision to abolish the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland? Is not it a further matter of regret that the First Minister has failed to show leadership on the issue or to follow the example of the previous First Minister, who chaired that sub-committee and ensured that sustainability was at the heart of Government and all its policy decisions?

Michael Russell:

I am sure that the member will not take it amiss if I quote Edith Piaf and say, "Je ne regrette rien."

This Government is delivering on every one of the objectives that I included in the spending review. The Government's actions and words go together and we are showing leadership. For eight years, leadership was invisible in the Governments that were supported by Karen Whitefield. It is now highly visible. I find very difficult to understand why anybody can imply that the present First Minister is invisible. Given all those circumstances, I suggest that the sustainability of my answer is considerably greater than the sustainability of the very shaky question that the member asked.


Justice and Law Officers


Forensic Science Services

To ask the Scottish Executive what further consideration it is giving to the future provision of forensic science services. (S3O-3214)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):

I understand the concerns that the member and others have raised, and I am grateful to them for doing so. I want everyone to understand and support our reasons for moving forward before we do so. The provision of forensic science services is the responsibility of the Scottish Police Services Authority, but the Scottish Government's approval is required for major capital investment. I have approved the SPSA's proposal for a much-needed new forensic laboratory in Dundee. Let there be no doubt that that will transform the quality of forensic science available to the Scottish police service.

I have asked the SPSA to look again at the proposed integration of the Aberdeen and Dundee laboratories; to look at the implications of that for the provision of forensic services to Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary; to engage in fresh consultation with interested parties; and to let me have further advice. I want there to be the fullest opportunity for everyone to contribute their views and to understand the arguments for and against. In the meantime, no decision will be taken to close the Aberdeen forensic laboratory.

Brian Adam:

I am sure that the staff at Aberdeen are as grateful as I am for that answer.

Considerable concerns have been expressed about the lack of consultation before the business plan was submitted to you. Will you publish the business plan so that others can examine it? Can you assure us that the consultation that you have announced will be thorough, will involve the staff, and is not a fait accompli?

I am afraid that I can do none of those things, Mr Adam, but I suspect that the minister might be able to.

Kenny MacAskill:

I am aware of complaints and disquiet about the way in which the consultation has been carried out. I expect the consultation to be full, open, transparent and meaningful.

As regards other documentation, unless information is commercially confidential, it should be available so that everyone can see that appropriate decisions are being made by what is, after all, a publicly funded body.

Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab):

I welcome the minister's decision to ask the SPSA to consider the matter again. He will recall that I first raised the matter with him in February, and he will recall that he told me in a written answer on 14 April that—on its proposal to close the forensic science laboratory in Aberdeen—the SPSA had consulted

"staff, unions, police authorities, Chief Constables and regional procurators fiscal".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 14 April 2008; S3W-11133.]

Will the cabinet secretary now publish the responses to the consultation? If not, why not?

Kenny MacAskill:

It seems to me that the offer of full, frank and new consultation is perhaps much more to be welcomed than an offer to go back over old ground. I can see no reason why some responses should not be available.

We should be looking at matters afresh, to ensure that everyone who has a contribution to make, and everyone who has a clear involvement and locus, has an opportunity to be heard.

I am aware of the disquiet expressed by Mr Macdonald, Mr Adam and others. I am anxious that we should consider matters afresh. Members have received an undertaking from the Government that—as I said at the outset—the consultation will be full, frank and transparent, involving all appropriate parties. It would be better to move forwards than to spend our time looking backwards.


Open Prisons

To ask the Scottish Executive whether there are any plans to expand Scotland's open prison estate. (S3O-3248)

As I confirmed on 22 November 2007, there are no plans to expand Scotland's open prison estate. However, the open estate remains an important part of the Scottish Government's penal policy.

Mike Pringle:

The minister is aware of the problems that are faced by long-term prisoners on release from prison and their undoubted contribution to Scotland's high reoffending rates. He is also aware that 75 per cent of people who are sent to prison for six months or less reoffend within two years, whereas only 42 per cent of those who are given community sentences do so. Will the minister consider making greater use of the open estate as a halfway house to reintegrate long-term prisoners into society and, in so doing, to cut reoffending rates? Moreover, does he believe that there is a need for more open prison places and agree that more use should be made of community sentencing to free up the open estate?

Kenny MacAskill:

The member raises a variety of points, many of which I agree with. I reiterate that we have no plans to expand the current open prison estate. However, following an internal review by the Scottish Prison Service, there is now a substantial capacity in the estate that no doubt will be considered in due course. Moreover, the McLeish commission is examining whether the SPS and the open estate are operating appropriately.

However, as the member correctly points out, the Government believes that the open estate forms a valuable part of how we rehabilitate people into the community. As all the evidence clearly suggests, if we simply release a person without making any attempt to rehabilitate or to reintegrate them, they are very likely to be back to see us again very soon. That serves neither us nor our communities well.

That said, we agree with Mr Pringle and the Liberal Democrats about community sentencing. Prison should be for serious or dangerous offenders. Instead of funding free bed and board for those who commit less serious offences, we should ensure that they repay with the sweat of their brow the damage that they have done to their communities.

Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):

Although there is unanimous agreement in the Parliament that the open estate plays a definite role in the prison system, does not the minister agree that it would be absolute folly to extend the number of open prison places before a full inquiry has been held into the criteria that are used to send people from the closed to the open estate?

Kenny MacAskill:

The member's position is very wise. Back in November, I told Mr Aitken's colleague Mr Fraser that we had no plans to expand the open estate. Nothing has changed since then.

The fact is that the prison estate's capacity has not yet been fully utilised. We are trying to work out why that should be, but it appears that, following the tragedy of the Robert Foye case, some of the criteria have quite correctly been changed. That is understandable. After all, the Government made it quite clear that the SPS had to review the situation; it has done so and is now implementing many changes to ensure, for example, that there are proper risk assessments. The service is also on the case with regard to reintroducing dedicated governors to our two open estate prisons—an issue in which, I have to say, it was rather remiss.


Women in Custody

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to ensure that the dignity of women in custody is upheld. (S3O-3209)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):

Dignified treatment of women prisoners is essential. As we said recently in the chamber, the Government finds the handcuffing of pregnant women unacceptable. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service has put in place a variety of specific policies to ensure the proper treatment of female offenders.

Dr Simpson:

As the cabinet secretary pointed out, at last week's First Minister's question time, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said unequivocally that

"the handcuffing of pregnant women in hospital"

was

"absolutely unacceptable".—[Official Report, 1 May 2008; c 8177.]

However, that night, the director of the SPS, Mike Ewart, said on "Newsnight Scotland" that it could still happen in exceptional circumstances.

Moreover, in a written reply to an earlier written question of mine, Mr Ewart said that women would be unhandcuffed to hold or feed their babies. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need to instruct the SPS to cease these practices in relation to pregnant and newly delivered women? If so, he will certainly have my full support.

Kenny MacAskill:

I welcome Dr Simpson's comments and am aware of his long-standing interest in and actions on this issue. Indeed, I hope to build on that work.

I do not think that there is any difference between the attitude of and comments expressed by Mr Ewart as chief executive of the SPS and the Deputy First Minister's comments. The SPS has made it clear that it does not accept such actions and does not wish to see them occur. In many cases, such incidents have happened as a result of instructions given by Reliance.

However, there are exceptional circumstances. Of the prisoners in Cornton Vale, 50 per cent have self-harmed, 98 per cent have a drug or alcohol addiction, 70 per cent present with mental health issues and 60 per cent report various instances of abuse. Sadly, there are occasions on which it is necessary to prevent prisoners from harming themselves. I have been told by Mr Ewart and others of cases in which a prisoner has threatened to harm their child. Such cases are few and far between, but there are exceptional circumstances in which it would be negligent not to ensure the safety of the prisoner and their unborn child. Indeed, as Richard Simpson knows from his past experience as a practitioner, there are circumstances in which it is also necessary to protect medical staff from people who may present a danger not just to themselves but to others.

Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP):

The Equal Opportunities Committee took evidence recently on female offenders in the criminal justice system; the Lord Advocate was among those from whom we heard. One issue that was raised was that the fact that community service orders were designed more for men than for women makes it extremely difficult for women to carry them out. Will the cabinet secretary examine that issue, with a view to making CSOs much more suitable for women?

Kenny MacAskill:

That is a valid point. Some steps have been taken, including the setting up of the 218 centre, but it is clear that many of the standard community service schemes are geared towards young men, who make up the majority of the people who commit crime and fill up our courts. We must ensure that suitable disposals are available for women who offend. As I said in reply to Dr Simpson, many female prisoners have underlying mental health or substance abuse issues, and they may require treatment more than they require punishment.

However, we must remember that many female prisoners have committed offences that must be punished. We must ensure that the appropriate disposal, whether that is a treatment order or a punishment order, is available to the sheriff or judge so that they can make the correct decision, thereby helping to rehabilitate the offender and make our communities safer. We will make offenders better citizens if we allow them to repay the damage that they have caused.


Firearms (Consolidation Bill)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made on a consolidated firearms bill. (S3O-3232)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):

We held a very successful firearms summit yesterday, at which a range of key interests was represented. It was clear that an overhaul of firearms legislation is long overdue. I regret that the Home Secretary did not attend the summit, even though she was invited to do so. I will write to update her on the summit's findings.

However, legislation alone will not solve the problem. Over the summer, we will work collectively on an information campaign to highlight the dangers of firearms in our communities.

Stuart McMillan:

I am pleased that the summit appears to have been constructive and that the issue of how to rid our streets of illegal guns and of the reported 500,000 air weapons that are in circulation is being considered with a sense of urgency.

The cabinet secretary is aware that weapons are not necessarily an isolated problem but can be tied up with the drugs trade, as the drugs raids that Strathclyde Police carried out last Friday in Inverclyde demonstrated. He has said that he will communicate with the Home Secretary. Will he stress to her that new legislation is necessary, regardless of whether Scotland acts as a pilot area? She must understand and realise that there is a problem that needs to be tackled.

Will the cabinet secretary provide further information on the activities that will take place this summer?

Kenny MacAskill:

As regards the primary subject of the question, the summit made it clear that the current legislation, which is dealt with on a pan-United Kingdom basis, is no longer fit for purpose. Evidence from serving police officers of significant rank and from the judiciary showed that, in many instances, the law is, frankly, incomprehensible and requires to be overhauled. We will make that clear to the Home Secretary.

As the member correctly identified, it is clear that there is a significant link between the use of more serious weapons and serious crime. That said, I do not seek to downplay how dangerous air weapons are, given the number of tragedies that have been caused by them. The parents of Andrew Morton were present at yesterday's summit. Those of us at the summit were briefed by police officers on the link between guns and serious crime. Dealing with the issue is largely down to sophisticated police intelligence, and to the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and our police forces working in co-operation with forces south of the border and—given that weapons come in from a variety of sources—on the European continent. The issue is being tackled.

In the campaign over the summer, we will work on a cross-party basis across a variety of agencies. The campaign will remind people of their responsibilities and obligations, and of the dangers of firearms and what might happen to them if they abuse them.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):

I welcome the constructive nature of yesterday's summit at Bute house. I believe that, despite our differences of opinion with the Government, it was a constructive dialogue, and I hope that it will continue. I also welcome the Home Secretary's commitment to listen to the outcome of the talks.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is important to establish what impact the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 has had, particularly on the requirement for air-guns to be sold by licensed dealers? How does the Scottish Government intend to collate information on whether the 2006 act has resulted in a reduction in the sale of air-guns, given that there is anecdotal evidence that that is the case?

Kenny MacAskill:

Pauline McNeill raises a valid point. If memory serves me right, she raised that point at the summit, and I recall that the Government gave an undertaking to work out the information to which she referred. Obviously, some changes have been introduced only recently. However, I think it was agreed at the summit that the number of outlets selling air-guns is not substantial and that the justice department should be capable of doing a phone-round. I reiterate my undertaking to carry that out, and we will seek to share the information across the parties. We will also seek to draw that information to the attention of the Home Secretary.

The member is correct that the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 has made changes. However, the Government believes that the changes do not go far enough. I remind Pauline McNeill of the views of senior police officers and members of the judiciary that the current firearms legislation that has been built up since 1968 was often introduced in reaction to great concern about events that took place at Hungerford and Dunblane, for example, which is understandable. However, firearms law is not as good as it should be, and it is no longer appropriate for the 21st century. I ask Pauline McNeill to consider joining me in reiterating to the Home Secretary that, for that reason alone, we require a consolidated act that is appropriate. If that is a pan-UK act, the Government is more than happy to say: so be it.


Strathclyde Police (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the Cabinet Secretary for Justice last met the chief constable of Strathclyde Police and what issues were discussed. (S3O-3202)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):

I last met the chief constable of Strathclyde Police on 25 April at the Scottish Police College, where we attended the passing out parade for the first 52 additional police officers funded by this Government. That is proof, if proof were needed, that this Government, in partnership with local authorities, is delivering on its commitment to recruit 1,000 additional police officers during this session of the Parliament.

Des McNulty:

I draw the minister's attention to an incident that happened last Monday, in which a woman was stabbed for 50p by a beggar outside a pub. That is another instance of the random violence, involving the use of a knife in this case, that is becoming an increasingly major problem not just in Glasgow city but throughout Strathclyde. There were five murders in Glasgow last weekend. We must find a way forward to tackle that situation.

It is all very well talking about 50 new police officers across Scotland, but there must be not only additional police on the streets, but Government co-ordination to address the real problems that affect the lives and freedoms of people in our major city. Will the minister consult his Cabinet colleagues and try to focus on how we can address the issue in a serious, non-partisan way? The incidents that we have seen in the past few days are completely unacceptable.

Kenny MacAskill:

Absolutely. I cannot comment on the specific matters to which the member refers, but every such incident, whether a murder or a stabbing, is unacceptable and a tragedy.

I reiterate that we are committed to recruiting 1,000 new officers; even more than that will be available and visible on our streets as a result of retention and redeployment. We must build, on a non-partisan basis, on the violence reduction strategy that was initiated by my predecessor, Cathy Jamieson. We must intervene early and we must change the culture of alcohol abuse. There is no simple solution to the problem that we face. It is a problem not only in the city of Glasgow, but the length and breadth of Scotland. For example, I observed on a website that a tragedy occurred up in a more rural part of Highland Scotland. We must deal with such matters.

If there were a simple solution, it would have been found by previous Governments. However, I confirm that this Government will build on the correct attitude that was taken by Cathy Jamieson in seeking to intervene early, address the booze-and-blade culture that we have in Scotland and provide tough enforcement. Our courts and—as the Lord Advocate made clear to me—the Crown view that culture as unacceptable. They have a zero tolerance approach to it and are being tough in the implementation of the legislation. We must have a variety of approaches, and I welcome the member's commitment. As a society, we must resolve this issue.


Offenders (HM Prison Inverness)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to rehabilitate offenders before and after their release from HM Prison Inverness. (S3O-3224)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):

HM Prison Inverness provides a range of measures that respond to prisoners' assessed needs and promote and support more constructive lifestyles on release. Such measures challenge offending behaviour and develop employability skills and social responsibility.

Rob Gibson:

After the unannounced full inspection of the prison on 5 to 9 November 2007, it was recommended

"that the delivery of interventions to address offending behaviour is reinvigorated, and that a systematic and planned approach to the delivery, in suitable accommodation, is introduced."

Will that be possible in the prison budget and will it be delivered soon?

Kenny MacAskill:

The problems that are faced by Inverness prison are faced throughout the prison estate. We have an excellent prison service in Scotland, which deals with difficult and often dangerous people in circumstances that are often exceedingly challenging. Until we can get control of prison numbers, and allow the prison service to focus on its requirement to protect our citizens from the danger of prisoners escaping and ensure that prisoners seek to be rehabilitated, there is a limit to what can be done.

I reiterate that the staff and governor of HM Prison Inverness are doing extremely well in difficult times. They are working with organisations in the public sector and beyond to ensure that there is a route out of prison for those who are caught up in it.