Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, November 11, 2010

Official Report 1085KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive Question Time

---

Rural Affairs and the Environment

---

Wildlife Crime (Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on the role of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in combating wildlife crime. (S3O-11891)

The SSPCA’s work in tackling cruelty to animals often leads it into certain types of wildlife crime cases. I am grateful for the support that the SSPCA provides in that respect. It works closely and successfully with the police in joint investigations and plays a leading role in the partnership for action against wildlife crime.

I am sure that the minister agrees with me that the SSPCA does a great job. I am sure that she also agrees that the first instinct of many of our constituents who witness crimes against wild or domestic animals is to call the SSPCA. What plans do ministers have to consult on extending the society’s powers? If they have any such plans, what would be the timescale for the introduction of any legislation?

At present, there are no concrete plans to consult on an extension of the SSPCA’s powers. However, that discussion is active in the context of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.

I am aware of the offer that the SSPCA has made. It is worthy of careful consideration, but members need to be aware that extending the SSPCA’s powers would make a substantial change to criminal justice in Scotland. One or two issues and concerns have been raised in various quarters that would require to be gone into carefully before we proceeded any further.

In my view, it is not appropriate to extend the SSPCA’s powers through the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. However, I do not rule that out for the future, and I certainly look forward to reading the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s conclusions in that regard.

The minister is aware that evidence that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee has received suggests that SSPCA inspectors should be given additional powers to pursue those who are responsible for wildlife crime. Does she agree that, before that suggestion is considered further, all efforts should be made to ensure that every police force in Scotland has at least one dedicated wildlife crime officer and that redeployment within forces should be considered, as should recruiting more special constables to support our overstretched police force? The police are and must remain the enforcement agency; their absolute independence and training make them the most appropriate people to pursue those who commit wildlife crime.

The role of the police in investigating any crime remains central. Even supposing that there were extensions to the SSPCA’s powers in future, that would not remove from the police their primary role.

Currently, all eight police forces have a wildlife crime co-ordinator, although not all have full-time posts. All forces also have a full or part-time wildlife crime officer, although I am aware that, in some police forces, there may be a question mark over some of those posts.

Operational policing matters are not my responsibility and I cannot direct police forces to do or say anything or act in certain ways. However, the Government expects all Scotland’s police forces to investigate all crime to the best of their ability and resources, which I anticipate will continue to happen in future.

---

Flooding Emergencies

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to prepare for potential flooding emergencies. (S3O-11885)

I recently wrote to all MSPs, setting out the extensive programme of work that the Government and its partners have in hand to make sure that Scotland is as prepared as possible to deal with flood risks. We have invested significantly in improving Scotland’s flood warning systems and increased support to communities through our additional funding for the Scottish flood forum.

Current levels of expenditure on flooding-related activity are at an historic high. Local authority flood prevention schemes were granted £9 million in 2006-07, when we were not in government, but the amount included for flood prevention schemes in the local government settlement for 2010-11 is £42 million.

Following the floods in the north-east last year, I wrote to the minister to support a proposal from the Met Office and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for an early flood warning system. I welcome the fact that the system has now been agreed and will start operation next March, but what steps will be taken this winter to provide early warnings for communities that are at risk of flooding? In the light of the concerns that have been raised about the preparedness of the emergency response to the flooding in Stonehaven, particularly last year, what dialogue has taken place with the local authority and the emergency services to ensure that any lessons that need to be learned have been learned?

There were quite a lot of questions wrapped into one there. The Government constantly reviews the arrangements for flood prevention and flood warnings. That is why we have put in the amounts of money that we have provided up until now—amounts of money that were simply not available in the years before 2007. The member should accept that the Government has put huge amounts of money into flood prevention. We are beginning to see some of the benefits of that, but of course it cannot within three or four years make up for the previous eight years, during which, frankly, not enough was done.

Interestingly, last year’s floods were precisely the reason for the letter that was sent around, and the timing of the letter. We needed to make everybody aware and remind everybody of the threat of flooding in Scotland and the increased threat that is brought about by some of the changes in our weather patterns that are beginning to be obvious. We wanted to remind people that it is important that there is preparedness at every single level, from the domestic household all the way through to local authorities and the responders, and indeed in relation to what the Government has done.

On Stonehaven, I am aware that residents have experienced considerable difficulties because of and after last year’s floods. We are trying to learn lessons. Every time there is a flooding incident, there are lessons to be learned. Nowhere—in no Government—is there ever a perfect response all the time. I would not pretend to be in the position of claiming that there was such a response. Each time there is such an event, we must learn the lessons for the future. I reassure the member that that is happening in respect of Stonehaven, just as it is happening in respect of all the other flooding incidents that we have experienced in Scotland over the last years.

Will the minister confirm that Aberdeenshire Council has done as much as it can to learn the lessons from the flooding in Stonehaven and Huntly, and that the council and SEPA have put protection measures in place? Does she agree that each individual household must build its own resilience in dealing with the floods?

Everybody—that is each one of us as an individual householder as well as our various local authorities and all the other relevant bodies—has a responsibility to do what we can. Obviously, what we can do at a domestic level is quite limited, but that does not absolve us of the responsibility to do it.

Aberdeenshire Council has indeed carried out a lot of work in response to the Stonehaven and Huntly floods. It has been clearing river banks and watercourses and ensuring that the existing flood alleviation infrastructure is as efficient as possible. SEPA has been installing a new gauge on the Carron, which, although it is unable to provide flood warnings, can provide and has provided good flood monitoring, allowing the council, police and fire and rescue services to make decisions in real time during flooding events.

When the agreement between SEPA and the Met Office bears fruit, we will have a rolling five-day forecast that is made available to all those who are involved in responding to floods so that they are as prepared as they can possibly be in the circumstances for what may or may not happen in the days ahead. That is probably about as much as can be expected at present, given that we have no certainty about when or precisely where a flood will hit.

---

Peatlands

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to promote the proper management of peatlands and the repair of damaged areas. (S3O-11883)

The Government is working in partnership with land managers to protect our peatlands. In particular, we have provided funding through the Scotland rural development programme for a number of peatland management options. Regulations that prevent inappropriate land use also serve to promote better management of peatlands.

Is the minister willing, as RSPB Scotland has suggested, to issue a ministerial direction to the statutory agencies to deliver peatland restoration? Is she willing to direct planning authorities to enforce peatland restoration and, in particular, to avoid granting any further consents for commercial peat extraction?

We understand the desire for more extensive restoration of damaged peatlands. The call for that is coming from a number of different areas. We have also noted the call for more research, particularly into the greenhouse gas effects of peatland restoration. The calculation is not straightforward and simple. We are looking at supporting further research.

The member may be interested to know that the Government will publish a policy statement on carbon-rich soils next month. That will set out what we are doing to support carbon-rich soils and will inform discussions about further opportunities to promote peatland restoration. All planners will have regard to these issues when it comes to decisions that are made on specific planning applications.

Some of our peatlands already lie in designated sites, but most, of course, do not. When proposals for significant land use change come forward, there are issues that Scottish Natural Heritage and SEPA need to be conscious and aware of, and they must advise the relevant authority of the likely impacts and any mitigation or compensation measures that would be required if the development were to go ahead. The calculation is not always easy to make. We still have a lot of work to do to try to ensure that we understand those impacts far more clearly than we do at the moment.

We support the RSPB financially through the rural priorities mechanism, and we will continue to do so.

---

Dairy Farmers (Support)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to dairy farmers. (S3O-11924)

Scotland’s dairy farmers received £49 million in 2009 in single farm payments and are due to receive £47 million in 2010. The difference is due to fluctuation in the exchange rate.

The Scottish Government has also provided dairy farmers with more than £13 million of funding since 2007 under the Scotland rural development programme. Scotland’s dairy processors have also benefited from more than £5 million of funding since 2008 under the food processing, marketing and co-operation grant scheme.

Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that, even though Scotland’s dairy industry is among the most efficient in the European Union, dairy farmers still receive poor financial returns? The exodus from the industry continues. Will he outline how the Government will work with all interested parties to reverse that trend and ensure that Scotland’s dairy farmers receive a fair price for their milk? Does he share my belief in Scotland’s potential not only to benefit from its high-quality primary produce but to transform the sector by developing excellent-quality processed and high-end products?

I share—as I am sure all members do—Aileen Campbell’s concern over the future of the dairy sector in Scotland. At present, it appears that many dairy farmers are being squeezed by competition among retailers, who often appear to use milk as a loss-leader to attract customers into their stores. That is all very well if the bottom line of the supermarket is taking the hit, but it sometimes appears that dairy farmers pay part of the price. I am sure that the whole chamber wants to address that matter.

How can we work together to address some of the issues? First, the European dairy high-level group will report shortly. Clearly, the Scottish Government will pay close attention to the group’s recommendations, which will of course be relevant to the dairy sector not only in Scotland but across Europe.

In Scotland, we continue to discuss with the dairy sector the way forward for an industry for which the issues are often complex. Over the next week or two, another dairy farming summit will be held in Edinburgh at which all stakeholders and, I hope, a number of members of the Scottish Parliament will get round the table. I agree that the issue will not go away in the short term. We have given a lot of support to help our industry to become even more efficient. Certainly, the industry is doing what it can. Although not all dairy farmers suffer to the same degree, the issues that they face are of big concern in the context of the future of Scotland’s food sector.

What is the minister’s response to the fact that my dairy farming constituents in the southern isles ring-fenced area face financial ruin as a result of not being able to sell their milk quota on the national milk quota market—something that every other dairy farmer can do?

As the member will be aware from much correspondence between us and with other members in recent years, the issue goes back some years. There is no likelihood of the Scottish Government’s current position on the issue changing. Many dairy farmers in Scotland face many different pressures. We must find solutions that help all dairy farmers and address some of the flaws in the current market.

I thank the cabinet secretary for inviting me, along with other members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, to the dairy stakeholders meeting next Thursday. Given that the main theme of the meeting is to share best practice to ensure a sustainable future for the dairy supply chain in Scotland, has the cabinet secretary been informed of whether the retailers will attend this time?

The member makes a good point. I hope that the retailers will attend. They attended the previous dairy summit; we are waiting to hear from some of them whether they will attend the forthcoming summit. It is difficult for us to achieve solutions for the dairy sector in Scotland if not all the key players in the supply chain are around the same table. Although I recognise that, for competition reasons, we cannot discuss certain themes at the meeting, I hope that the retail sector will turn out for it.

---

Single Farm Payment Scheme (Overdeclaration of Eligible Land)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive what the financial implications are for it and for farmers as a result of the overdeclaration of eligible land that was identified in the European Union audit of the 2006 single farm payment scheme. (S3O-11866)

The European Commission audit of 2006 expenditure on the single farm payment scheme has still to be drawn to a final conclusion, so it is too soon to assess the overall financial impact on the Scottish Government and our farmers. However, my officials are working assiduously to minimise any possible impact on the farming community from the audit of the payments and processes that were directed by the previous coalition Government.

I understand that the Scottish Government is providing our farmers with further details of what land is eligible and what land is ineligible for the single farm payment, and that it is encouraging them, where appropriate, to reassess their claimed areas. Will that have any implications for the timing of this year’s payment or for the amount that is paid out from December?

The member highlights the Scottish Government’s impressive track record on making single farm payments on time from 1 December onwards. I have tasked our rural payments and inspections directorate to pay at least 70 per cent of eligible claims by 1 December. We are proud of that track record and want to stick to it this year, as we have done in previous years.

The member makes a good point about the resources that are required to deal with all the common agricultural policy regulations and with the payments. I am convinced that we have applied enough resources to that to ensure that we can stick to our good timetable for making single farm payments.

---

Sustainable Development (Scrutiny)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive how it plans to ensure independent scrutiny of its record on sustainable development. (S3O-11951)

Following the United Kingdom Government’s decision to withdraw funding from the Sustainable Development Commission, the Scottish Government is considering the best way forward on scrutiny of sustainable development. We will announce decisions soon, in the context of the Scottish spending review.

Through the committee structure, Parliament provides a strong degree of political scrutiny of the Government’s record, but there is an important role for independent, non-political scrutiny. The Sustainable Development Commission has fulfilled that role well, challenging Government, when necessary, and offering constructive criticism, when possible. Does the minister recognise not only that Scottish funding for the STC must continue to be allocated for that purpose but that whatever vehicle fulfils that purpose must have the same degree of independence, to ensure that challenges can be brought, where necessary, not just to this Government but to any future Government?

The member raises a number of important issues. I agree that there is a need for independent monitoring of how the Scottish Government’s activities contribute to sustainable development.

Although I cannot give the member any guarantees about the funding situation—he will be well aware of the funding pressures that face the Scottish Government—I give him an assurance that, once we are in a position to take final decisions, we will closely consider how the independent scrutiny role can continue in one form or another.

The Scottish Parliament has a very important scrutiny role, and Audit Scotland, the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change and many other channels are available to ensure independent scrutiny of the Scottish Government with regard to sustainable development. We will carefully consider the need to ensure that that scrutiny continues, but I am not in a position right now to say exactly how it will continue.

---

Justice and Law Officers

---

Child Sex Offenders (Management)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive how many of the 33 recommendations in the Justice 2 Sub Committee’s 2006 report on managing child sex offenders have been delivered since 10 May 2007 and on what date these were or are expected to be implemented. (S3O-11903)

Thirty-one of the 33 recommendations have been implemented. Of those, nine were implemented prior to 10 May 2007 and 22 have been delivered since then.

We are unable to implement recommendation 20, requiring housing applicants to declare that they are registered sex offenders, as that would not be compatible with the Scottish Parliament’s duty to ensure that all legislation that it passes is compliant with the European convention on human rights. We expect recommendation 12 to be delivered in 2011.

Six years after the tragic murder of Mark Cummings by the convicted sex offender Stuart Leggate, we have moved on. I welcome the cross-party consensus on the issue.

I am not convinced that there is an argument against registered sex offenders providing that information when they make a housing application. I acknowledge some of the challenges that we face regarding ECHR compliance, but does the minister agree that it is unacceptable, particularly when we consider the history of the issue, that a registered sex offender does not have to provide that information to a housing organisation when making an application for rehousing?

In the case of Mark Cummings, it was clear that Stuart Leggate did not provide that information. That crucial information should have been provided to the housing provider, which would have allowed Stuart Leggate to be monitored.

Mr Martin raises a variety of matters, and I pay tribute to him for the manner in which he has supported Margaret Ann Cummings. I acknowledge the progress that has been made, collectively.

The situation is regrettable. The Government sought to establish whether we could avoid the impediment that has been placed upon us, but the legal advice was clear that that would not be compliant with the ECHR. The matter clearly causes concern, especially to local authorities and to those who deal with housing applications. The member’s point regarding the tragic death of the young Mark Cummings is clear.

We must recognise that there other ways in which we can now carry out monitoring, through sexual offences prevention orders and multi-agency public protection arrangements. It would have been preferable had we been able to pursue matters in the way that emerged from the general review. I can assure Mr Martin and the Parliament that there are other ways of ensuring that the police co-operate with housing associations, which, in turn, should co-operate with social work departments.

The issue was not simply to do with the address that Leggate was living at; one of the clear problems arising from that case was the failure to have joined-up communications between the various organisations concerned, all of which have not just a statutory obligation but a moral obligation to look after the safety of our youngsters.

Progress has been made, despite the difficulties that we have faced as a result of the impediment to bringing the matter to fruition.

Question 2 was not lodged.

---

Prisoners (Right to Vote)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has been consulted by the United Kingdom Government regarding its response to the European Court of Human Rights decision on convicted prisoners having the right to vote. (S3O-11917)

No, the Scottish Government has not been consulted by the UK Government over its reported plans to change electoral law in response to the European Court of Human Rights decision on convicted prisoners having the right to vote.

The cabinet secretary’s reply has come as a bit of a surprise to me. I am of the opinion that people who are convicted of serious breaches of the law should forfeit the privilege of deciding who determines the law.

The Scottish ministers have responsibility for running the local authority elections in 2012. HM Prison Dumfries has a population of 120 long and short-term offence-related protection prisoners, such as sex offenders who have refused to take part in a STOP programme. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that if those offenders are permitted to vote, their votes could materially affect the results of the election to Dumfries and Galloway Council in the North West Dumfries ward? Have he and his colleagues considered how such a situation might be avoided in North West Dumfries and in other council wards in Scotland that have prisons in their boundaries?

The Scottish Government has always made its position clear. We were not consulted by the current UK Government on its pronouncement, but in prior discussions the Scottish Government made it clear that it did not agree with the proposal to give prisoners the franchise. The situation in Scotland has always been that people who are remanded, who are innocent pending a trial, have the right to vote, but people who have been convicted of a criminal offence, whether it is serious or otherwise, face consequences as well as the imposition of a penalty by the court.

I cannot comment on the particular circumstances of the ward in Dumfries to which Elaine Murray referred. I do not think that there will necessarily be a great rush among the fraternity to take matters up. The member can rest assured that the Government disagrees with the UK Government’s decision and that previously, when there was a consultation, we clearly, unambiguously and specifically expressed the view that we did not agree with the approach.

---

Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 (Post-legislative Scrutiny)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on calls for urgent post-legislative scrutiny of the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010. (S3O-11878)

The Scottish Government has announced a fully independent review of law and practice in the wake of the decision in Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate. The review will be led by Lord Carloway, who is a senior High Court judge, and will encompass many of the issues that are addressed in the 2010 act. The review will report in sufficient time to provide the option of legislating during the 2011-12 parliamentary year.

I welcome Lord Carloway’s review. Has the cabinet secretary discussed the 2010 act with the chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission? Are there proposals for training for solicitors and police officers on how the new legislation will operate?

I will deal with the member’s questions in reverse order. Yes, the Law Society of Scotland and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland were fully canvassed on the matter, and the chief superintendent who represents ACPOS in that regard is ensuring that police training is brought up to speed. Thanks to the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland, guidance changed in the summer and there is already implementation in relation to many matters.

The specific change in the 2010 act is the increase in the maximum period of detention, to ensure that the police can do their job and balance the rights of people who face accusations in relation to serious offences with the needs of the police and the need for our communities to be protected from crime. ACPOS and the Law Society of Scotland have been in discussion for a considerable time.

I discussed the matter with Professor Alan Miller at a meeting of international human rights commissioners, which was hosted in the Parliament—I think that that was the first United Nations-supported event that we have held here. I made it clear to Professor Miller and to most of the representatives and dignitaries at the meeting that the Government fully supports human rights, as do the people of Scotland, but we think that human rights means the right not to have one’s family starve before one’s very eyes, the right not to have one’s country disappear under rising sea levels and the right to greater access to truth and justice.

The position of members who appear to think that the extension of the period of detention from six to 12 hours correlates with such issues seems preposterous. I have just dealt with a question on the right to vote of people who are convicted of serious offences, including the sexual abuse and murder of youngsters, and a question about the right of people who are convicted of a serious sexual offence not to have that information routinely made available to housing associations that deal with them. As I said at the meeting of international human rights commissioners, in the context of what we mean when we talk about human rights, some people in Scotland should get things in proportion.

One of the implications of the recent legislation is that 500 additional police officers will be required to administer the arrangements whereby suspects have the right to a lawyer when they are detained in the police station. That will come at a cost of £20 million according to the financial memorandum. What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth about the implications of the recent legislation for the draft budget, which will be published next week, and the implications for front-line policing throughout Scotland?

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will make a statement on the budget to Parliament next week. I have had full discussions with him, not simply on the Cadder case but on the other challenges that face the Scottish Government, and the justice directorate in particular, as a consequence of the problems arising from the cuts that were initiated by the Labour Government in London and which are now accelerating under the Conservative-Liberal coalition.

The figures in the financial memorandum to the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 are as Mr Kelly said. However, as matters become clear, it is being recognised that the doomsday scenario that some predicted is not coming to fruition. That said, no one should underestimate the difficulties that will be caused as a result of a decision of the UK Supreme Court, which is not meant to deal with criminal appeals in Scotland. That decision will have not just financial consequences, but significant consequences for the law of Scotland; that was never meant to happen and it is a matter that will require to be addressed.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that his earlier rant is not an excuse for, and does not explain, his not consulting with the Scottish Human Rights Commission on the introduction of the legislation? More to the immediate point, is he aware that when England introduced equivalent arrangements, it took two years before the training mechanisms were put in place for the police and the solicitors involved? A large volume of advice and instruction was given on all that and it has to be followed through.

Finally, will the cabinet secretary advise us whether Lord Carloway’s remit has been, or will be, put into the public domain?

No; we will discuss Lord Carloway’s remit with him. Clearly we will not direct him, but once the remit has been fine-tuned and agreed with him, we will make it available.

The problems that have to be faced south of the border are predominantly due to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 system that is operated down there. The Administration here, supported by ACPOS and others, has made it clear that although we might have to accept some of the directions of travel as a consequence of the Cadder case, we will certainly not accept the bureaucracy that seems to be consequent south of the border.

We consulted the appropriate stakeholders, including the Law Society of Scotland, the judiciary, the police and relevant members.

I do not know how the Scottish human rights commissioner defines his role and, as I have just said to Mr Smith, I discussed that with him. I have to say that, when we are hearing about allegations of British soldiers using torture in Iraq, and other similar matters, I am surprised that Mr Miller and, indeed, Mr Brown and Mr Smith, seem to be so vexed by the increase in detention hours from six to 12 when they have failed to comment on matters that are much more fundamental to human rights.

Question 5 was not lodged.

---

Assault to Injury (Direct Measures)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive how many direct measures have been issued for assault to injury since 1 April 2008. (S3O-11862)

Approximately 11,500 charges of assault to injury are reported by the police each year. Under the terms of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, procurators fiscal issued direct measures for assault to injury to a total of 815 people in 2008-09, 546 people in 2009-10, and 312 people between April and September 2010.

The cabinet secretary said a few moments ago that some people in Scotland should get things in proportion. The Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland has provided me with details of cases in which direct measures were used, including somebody being struck with a pickaxe handle and somebody else punching, biting and kicking, which led to a laceration of an eyebrow, bleeding, a bite mark, and bumps and scratches on the victim’s head. Are those incidents appropriate for direct measures?

I have no direct knowledge of those two cases, but Her Majesty’s independent Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland concluded in the review of direct measures that their use is appropriate, proportionate and in accordance with the guidance.

Mr Brown is well aware from previous questions that I have answered that direct measures are not used for serious violence, domestic violence, assaults on police and emergency workers, assaults with a sexual element, persistent offenders, assaults aggravated by race, religion or sexuality, or assaults that are likely to attract a sentence of imprisonment or community service order.

I should add that, in general, summary justice reform is delivering significant benefits to the criminal justice system. Cases are being dealt with more quickly—the figure for cases dealt with in 26 weeks is up from 70 to 77 per cent. There is a significant increase in early pleas of guilty from 21 to 33 per cent, and there has been a significant reduction in the number of witnesses cited. More than 50,000 witnesses, many of them police officers, have been spared the need to go to court to give evidence as a result of the impact of summary justice reform.

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

---

Advocate General for Scotland (Cadder Case)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Advocate General for Scotland on the implications of the Cadder case. (S3O-11932)

I welcome the Advocate General’s consultation on devolution issues and acts of the Lord Advocate, and his willingness to consider change in this important area. The First Minister and I have both written to the Advocate General to highlight the serious problems the current settlement is causing and to raise a number of wider issues arising from the Cadder case and more generally. In particular, we wish to re-establish the High Court of Justiciary as the highest criminal court in Scotland and to stop that role being undermined by large numbers of supposed devolution issues being referred to the Supreme Court. I also want to see Scotland able to present its case directly to the European Court of Human Rights in cases that have such an important impact on our justice system.

Will the cabinet secretary keep us informed in future about responses from the Advocate General for Scotland? It is important to know that as much concern is being expressed about these matters in Westminster as in Scotland and to see whether the Advocate General is a defender of the Scottish legal system or an advocate for the Supreme Court.

I am happy to do that. My letter to the Advocate General has been lodged in the Scottish Parliament information centre and is available for anybody to view. I have had a discussion with the Advocate General, in conjunction with a meeting with the Lord Chancellor south of the border, prior to his raising his consultation, so I accept the genuine willingness and direction that he has shown. However, there is a significant constitutional matter that has resulted in the significant problems that we discussed earlier. I assure the member that I am happy to keep him and other members informed. As a Government, we believe that we are being severely disadvantaged. The consequences are severe, and the whole nature of how our appeal system is supposed to operate has been undermined by people using devolution minutes.

I call Cathie Craigie. Very briefly, please.

We all have to learn from situations in which we have to take emergency action. Since the Parliament passed the emergency legislation, I have received a letter from a constituent who is very critical of the Government and the Parliament for the failure to consult fully before introducing the legislation. He has put the case to me that—

Ms Craigie, is there a question?

Why did the minister not consult on the various options on which the Supreme Court could have ruled?

The decision was given at 9.45 am on the Tuesday. To ensure that no problems arose for our police in protecting our communities from serious, dangerous offenders, we introduced emergency legislation the following day. Considering the nature of the decision, and its significance and seriousness, we acted appropriately. I am glad that Ms Craigie voted for it at the time; I am surprised that she is querying it now.

That concludes question time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that you were not in the chamber at the time but, in answer to question 4, which related to the Cadder decision, the cabinet secretary went off on a great excursion regarding matters to do with torture in Iraq. For the avoidance of doubt—the cabinet secretary appears not to understand this—can you clarify for the chamber that the question of Iraq has nothing whatever to do with the Scottish Parliament’s powers, or with the rights of the cabinet secretary or parliamentarians?

Order. I am afraid that that is not a point of order. I am not responsible for the content of ministerial answers.