Plenary, 12 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, January 12, 2006

Official Report 755KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

I wish the First Minister a happy new year and ask him what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2038)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland. I return Ms Sturgeon's greetings, and wish all other members a happy new year.

On a sadder note, I wish to record the death of Rachel Squire MP, who, in her nearly 20 years in the House of Commons, was a constant supporter of devolution. Her constituency, and Scotland, is a sadder place as a result of her passing away.

It is also right to record that, in his time as leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, Charles Kennedy was a strong supporter of this Parliament in advance of its creation and while it has existed. We should record our thanks to him for the role that, until last weekend, he had played for many years in that job. [Applause.]

I echo the First Minister's comments about Charlie Kennedy and, in particular, about Rachel Squire, who, as an MP, was well respected across the political spectrum in Scotland.

I assure the First Minister that the issue that I am about to raise is not party political. It is an issue of public concern, and I know that it will concern him as greatly as it concerns me. He will be aware that, south of the border, there are concerns about the possibility that people on the sex offenders register are being employed to work with children. Will he assure us that there is no possibility that anyone on the sex offenders register in Scotland will be employed to work with children in any capacity?

Our position—which I believe is shared by all parties—is that no one in Scotland who would be a danger to children should be employed to work with them. The systems that we have established and the planned improvements to them are designed to ensure that we meet that objective.

A number of systems are in place in Scotland. First, there is the sex offenders register that Ms Sturgeon mentioned. Secondly, there is the list of people who are disqualified from working with children, and it is an offence for someone to employ a person on that list to work with children. Thirdly, we have the system of disclosure and the absolute necessity not only for local authorities and the General Teaching Council for Scotland, but for other public bodies to ensure that full disclosure is made of past offences and convictions before anyone is employed to work with children.

I hope that, with all those different systems in place, no one will get through the net. However, we cannot guarantee that no employers or employees in Scotland are breaking the system or the law. The systems should deliver what we seek to achieve, and I hope that all public authorities in Scotland are adhering to them and to the law to ensure that that is the case.

The First Minister referred to the disqualified from working with children list, which lists all the people in Scotland who are, by law, banned from working with children. Is he aware that, according to a written parliamentary answer on 21 December 2005, 56 people are currently on that list? However, there are more than 2,800 people on the sex offenders register in Scotland. Does the First Minister share my concern that there may be—I put it no more strongly than that—the potential for someone who is on the sex offenders register but not on the disqualified from working with children list to slip through the child protection net? Is he prepared to review the law to ensure that such a risk is minimised?

Sir Michael Bichard himself said that the systems in Scotland were vastly superior to those south of the border. However, we feel that, as a result of his report, there are further changes that we should implement. We intend to bring our further plans to Parliament and go out to consultation on them this year.

I believe that the number of people on the disqualified from working with children list, which was established last January, has risen from the 56 that was mentioned in the parliamentary answer to 63. The list is important, and it is important that the Parliament introduced it. After all, it is absolutely right that, in Scotland, it is a criminal offence for someone to employ a person on the list to work with children or, indeed, for someone on the list to apply for a job that involves working with children.

It is also important that, when authorities obtain the enhanced disclosure that they must obtain, they have information about those who are on the sex offenders register—and, indeed, about those who are not on the register but who have other convictions, such as convictions for serious drugs offences—and that they ensure that that information is taken into account in advance of any decision about recruitment.

I believe that those systems should be robust and that information about the sex offenders register, which is available to all authorities in Scotland, should stop the employment of anybody who is unsuitable to work with children. I cannot guarantee that someone will not get through the net. If they do so, those who have allowed that to happen should be held accountable for it. However, I believe that those systems, which can lead to further improvement, have been rightly established by this Parliament and can be implemented effectively by authorities in Scotland.

Does the First Minister agree that the gap between 56 or 63 people—or whatever the figure is at present—and almost 3,000 people is far too wide, and that for as long as it remains that big we cannot guarantee that people on the sex offenders register, perhaps with convictions relating to child sex offences, will not end up working with children in Scotland? Does he agree that that is unacceptable? Does he agree with yesterday's comments by Sir Michael Bichard, who said that we want to move rapidly to a situation in which, if someone is on the sex offenders register, they should not work with children? Will the First Minister guarantee that the Scottish Executive will change the law to incorporate the sex offenders register into the disqualified from working with children list and that it will do so immediately?

As I said, we are preparing plans to implement the Bichard recommendations further. Those plans will be published this year and we hope to legislate at an early opportunity in order to implement any of the outstanding Bichard recommendations that are required to ensure not only that systems north and south of the border work together properly, but that systems in Scotland are as effective as they can be. I want to be absolutely clear about that.

I do not want to give the impression—and I am sure that Nicola Sturgeon does not want to give the impression—that anyone who is on the sex offenders register can be employed to work with children, or in any other inappropriate situation, without the authorities being able to check that in advance and stop it happening. That is the case in Scotland. It is not possible to employ someone to work with children in Scotland without that enhanced disclosure and without that information being available. Parliament set up the additional list—the list of those who are specifically disqualified from working with children—because we wanted a further safeguard to be in place in Scotland. That list has been operational since last January and I think that it will be important in the future. However, I believe that the relationship between the sex offenders register and the systems relating to working with children in Scotland requires further attention, and that is why it is being given that attention.

I am absolutely certain that no authority in Scotland should be employing anyone to work with children who is inappropriate for that work. This Parliament should demand, on a cross-party basis, that systems are put in place to ensure that that is put into practice. At the end of the day, if anyone breaks through the net and breaks that line, they must be held accountable for doing do.

Does the First Minister acknowledge that there is currently a gap, in that someone's inclusion on the sex offenders register will be disclosed to a prospective employer but, unless that person is also on the disqualified from working with children list, that will not bar them from working with children, because it is left to the employer's discretion? I asked the First Minister a specific question, and I shall ask him it again. Will he give an assurance that future changes to the law will bar everyone on the sex offenders register from working with children in the future—yes or no?

When this Parliament established the disqualified from working with children list last year, it decided not to make that list retrospective. If Parliament wanted to change that position, additional legislation would be needed. That would be a requirement if we were to implement Ms Sturgeon's suggestion. In the meantime, the position is absolutely clear. No authority in Scotland can employ someone to work with children without getting disclosures of previous convictions or of inclusion on the sex offenders register. We should be absolutely clear that authorities in Scotland should not be employing anyone who is a danger to children because they are on that register or because they pose a danger from any other perspective.

They can slip through the net.

I think that the position has to be clear. The Parliament voted for the disqualified from working with children list not to be retrospective. If members believe that the list should be retrospective, a proposal to change the legislation should be brought to the Parliament. I would not want to give the impression—we should not give the impression—that the existing legislation allows people to get through the net and to be employed by local authorities to work with children if they are a danger to children. All the systems that are in place in Scotland, which have been praised by Bichard, are in place to stop that happening. We cannot guarantee that someone will not get through the net, but if they ever do so, the people who are responsible for employing someone in such a situation should be held accountable, whether they work for a local authority or any other public agency.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2039)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister, but I have plans to speak to him and I will obviously wish him a happy new year.

I am sure that that will comfort him greatly.

I am certain that the public in Scotland will be as mystified and, indeed, horrified as the rest of us about yesterday's collapse of a trial for attempted murder in the High Court in Edinburgh because of bureaucratic error. Does the First Minister accept that we urgently need a speedy inquiry into that fiasco to establish exactly what went wrong?

I do not think that we need a wholesale inquiry. In such circumstances, the right thing to do is to ask the Lord Advocate to examine the matter and the steps that he can take. He is doing that today.

I am comforted to some extent by that response, but there is another issue lurking. What is alarming is the suspicion that the case is a symptom of a wider problem in the system and a demonstration of judicial frustration that an accused who was being held in a Scottish prison could not be located by the Crown Office. If that individual had been in Castle Huntly prison, he could have been anywhere but, as it happens, he was in Barlinnie.

When the First Minister asks the Lord Advocate to investigate the case, will he ask him to consider how we might improve communications between the different parts of the justice system to ensure that any person who is locked up in jail can be transported to the appropriate court on the due date to face trial?

I do not think that that is an accurate representation of what has happened, but I am extremely concerned about what has been reported today on the impact of what appears to have been human error in providing the wrong information to the wrong people.

From the very brief indication that the Lord Advocate has just provided—members will have noticed his giving it—I understand that the proceedings in question may still be live, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on the case today. However, I give the Parliament an absolute assurance that the commitment that we have given over recent years to legislate and to take administrative action to improve our justice system so that our courts operate more efficiently, more cases are brought to them timeously and more resources are provided to obtain more accurate evidence and thus ensure that there are more convictions of course applies today and will apply again in the future. If things go wrong in individual cases—as appears to have happened in the case that Annabel Goldie raises—they should be investigated properly by the Lord Advocate and he should take the appropriate action.

Final question.

I do not know whether it is reassuring or discomfiting to see the Lord Advocate scurrying round the Parliament to brief the First Minister. To put the public mind at ease and to disabuse it of any perception of complacency on the part of the First Minister, will he confirm to me—I understand that he may want to do so in writing—on how many occasions since 1999 court proceedings have been disrupted or abandoned because an accused person who was being held in custody was not brought to the right court on the right day at the right time?

We should wait and see what the position is with the case in question once accurate information has been obtained and proceedings have concluded.

There is an absolute guarantee that I can give to Annabel Goldie. In 2003, we gave a commitment to have a root-and-branch review of our justice system that would ensure that our court proceedings were more effective and would waste less time for victims, witnesses and police officers. I am certain that that will be the case by the end of the current parliamentary session. We also gave a commitment that the information in the system would be pulled together more coherently, communicated to the right people and used more effectively and that there would be less time wasting in that process, too.

We have given a commitment to ensuring that sentencing is more consistent. Our other commitments have been to the better resourcing of the courts, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the police. All those different commitments and actions will have improved the situation far beyond where it was back in 1999. That is one of the great benefits of devolution and of the Scottish Parliament. We are delivering on it.

There are two current constituency questions.

The First Minister will be aware of the recent textiles industry redundancies in Hawick in my constituency. Will he consider further targeted investments in specific overseas marketing initiatives to win orders in an increasingly competitive market? Does he agree that there are advantages to the local enterprise network leading national initiatives for specific industries, as Scottish Enterprise Borders does at the moment for textiles?

First, although I express regret at the announcements to which Euan Robson refers, I want to make it clear that parts of the Scottish textiles industry are doing very well. We should praise and support them in all that they are doing at home and abroad. I do not want to give the impression—neither, I am sure, does Euan Robson—that the industry is in some form of permanent crisis. Companies in the industry have innovated and invested and are succeeding as a result.

At the same time, it is important to say that, both in Scotland and abroad, the focus of Scottish Enterprise and its different arms is to boost and grow Scottish companies and employment and to ensure that other markets around the world are made well aware of the high quality of goods that are produced in Scotland. There is a role in that for the local enterprise companies in the Borders and elsewhere. Scottish Enterprise has recently implemented a huge increase in its overseas staff. I am certain that that will make a difference for Scottish companies in the years to come.

My question is on the antisocial behaviour dispersal order that was made in the community of Mid Calder. Is the First Minister aware of the comments of Superintendent Harry Watters of Lothian and Borders police, who said:

"The dispersal order has had exactly the impact we had hoped for with no significant incidents of disorder, a significant reduction in calls and a community truly heartened by the improvement"?

Will the First Minister take that as an affirmation that the dispersal order is an important tool for communities and the police in tackling antisocial behaviour?

Clearly, there has been a huge impact in Mid Calder as a result of the dispersal order. We should congratulate those who were responsible for pursuing it in the first place and those who have ensured that it has been well implemented over the past month. It is important for us to recognise that dispersal orders were designed for precisely such situations. They act as a short-term measure to break up a problem that has existed for far too long.

The original scare stories about dispersal orders portrayed them as some sort of permanent curfew that would damage communities for all time. They have been proven to be wrong. Dispersal orders work as a short-term, sharp measure to break up a long-term problem. The people of Mid Calder are obviously enjoying the benefits of that just now. I hope that others in Scotland will follow.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2043)

I meet the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly and we discuss a wide range of issues.

Yesterday, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development said:

"One thing that we can all accept is that every one of us … must play our part in delivering a sustainable Scotland."—[Official Report, 11 January 2005; c 22211-22212.]

What will the First Minister's personal contribution to sustainability be?

Where do I start with a question like that?

I have two contributions to make, the first of which is to provide leadership in the Executive and the Parliament in order to ensure, as we have done over the years, that the environment and sustainable development are taken more seriously by us all collectively, as a Government and a Parliament. For example, when I took over as First Minister back in late 2001, Scotland's record on the recycling of waste was among the most shameful and shocking in the world. Today, there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of our waste that is recycled. We continue to invest in waste plans and the education that goes with them. That is making a difference in Scotland and will make a difference to sustainable development. On a personal level, I make my own contribution to that every week.

Table 8 on page 18 of the Executive's environmental performance annual report tells us that the figure for all departmental Executive car miles increased from 1.9 million to 2.9 million between 2001 and 2005. The same report sets out the Executive's current target for a 5 per cent reduction in business car vehicle mileage, but goes on to suggest that rather than action being taken to enable that target to be met, the target should be abandoned. Is that sustainable? How can the First Minister justify the increase and the extraordinary decision to do nothing about it?

Last night, after the television had gone off—with the red light off, I hope—I was not sitting reading page 18 of the Executive's environmental performance report. Perhaps I should have been, but I was not.

Robin Harper raises a serious issue. All organisations, public and private, should consider the extent of car use by their staff and the way in which their organisations' systems incentivise such car use or a reduction in it. I am happy to consider the issue in more detail as a result of the question.

---

Rail Fares

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is concerned about the recent increase in rail fares. (S2F-2052)

Ministers believe that the rail companies must set fares at levels that balance affordability, investment and the need to encourage more travellers to choose the improved train services that we are providing.

I am sure that the First Minister will understand the reaction of ordinary passengers to this year's above-inflation increase in rail fares, given that they might not be aware of the planned investment in the rail network. Will the Executive use its new powers with Network Rail to ensure that investment is made in rail infrastructure to improve punctuality and tackle delays? Will the First Minister assure me that he will work with Network Rail and all those responsible for the railways to ensure that we continue to plan for increased capacity, without which we cannot get more passengers on to rail? Scottish passengers and the general public might then feel that they are getting better value for money.

I am pleased that Pauline McNeill welcomes the additional investment and wants to see things progressing as soon as possible. Before Christmas, it was a great pleasure to reopen the line from Larkhall to Milngavie—the Larkhall to Glasgow route—which is the first new branch railway in Scotland for a very long time. There are, of course, more to come. We have a long-term programme of investment in the Airdrie to Bathgate line, the Borders line and the airport rail links, as well as other investments. In each of those areas it is important that Network Rail co-operates with us, where it is obliged to. It is also important that we move forward speedily so that passengers in Scotland have an improved service on which to assess the current level of fares, whether they are going up, remaining static or going down.

Does the First Minister agree that the primary reason for our having high rail fares in Scotland is the high cost of running the rail network? Does he recall the evidence of the Office of the Rail Regulator to the Parliament a year ago that Network Rail currently operates at 31 per cent inefficiency? Does he agree that we should accept the critique of Janette Anderson, the chief executive of First Engineering, who said that the necessary process of improvements, which Pauline McNeill mentioned, was "unbelievably slow and cumbersome"? Does he accept that that critique, far from being idiocy, was spot on?

There have been discussions since then about the way in which that process operates. The new powers that we have in relation to rail infrastructure give us the opportunity to ensure that there is greater efficiency and better co-ordination between those who are responsible for the infrastructure and those who are responsible for the services. That is a good thing, which is a benefit to Scotland; it gives us a chance to improve not only the capacity of our rail network, but the quality of service on it.

The Parliament has a responsibility to modernise its procedures to ensure that speedier decisions are taken on the new lines that are required. We also have a responsibility to ensure that the budget commitments are there to deliver those new lines and support those new services. We will adhere to that commitment.

---

Older People (Care)

To ask the First Minister what strategy has been adopted by the Scottish Executive to maintain and develop an appropriate range of care homes and day centres for older people across Scotland. (S2F-2050)

It is important that the service that is provided to older people is of high quality and appropriate to their needs. Ministers have increased our community care support for local authorities to £1.6 billion in the current year to help achieve that. It is for individual local authorities to determine their community care needs and to secure appropriate services, such as care homes and day centres.

Does the First Minister recognise the special circumstances and extra costs of caring for dependent older people in scattered communities such as Lochinver, Tain, Fort William and many of our islands? Does he understand that the extra cost of meeting the care commission's standards and inspections is shrinking the availability of respite care places in particular and that that is directly and adversely affected by an inadequate local government settlement, about which Highland Council and many other local authorities are openly expressing concern?

Will the First Minister uphold the cornerstone of social justice that is the principle that older people should be cared for in their own communities and in an appropriate facility that is properly financed rather than being shipped off to larger settlements far from family support?

I am not saying that this is the case across the board, but I think that there is an element of what Rob Gibson is saying that might slightly misrepresent what is happening in the Highland area. As I understand it, many of the changes that are taking place in care homes are designed to ensure that people can stay in houses in their local communities rather than transferring to other care homes. If that is indeed the case, it is something that we should support. Most elderly people in Scotland want to stay in their own home if they can, and they want adequate support in their own home to allow them to do that. I would want to encourage and continue that trend, in Highland and elsewhere. However, there is a need for a wide range of services for elderly people, some of whom will require the support of a care home environment while others will require support in their own homes. Of course, many will require no support at all. However, the funding settlement that we have outlined, which has increased dramatically over the years, is designed to achieve that range of options for elderly people.

I counsel all members of the Parliament against deciding to vote later this afternoon for a council tax freeze, which would reduce the amount of money that is available to councils for care homes and, therefore, reduce the support for elderly people.

Does the First Minister share my concern about Highland Council's proposal to sell a number of care homes to the private sector? That will not guarantee the appropriate provision and long-term existence of care for the elderly. With the potential reduction in the provision of care for the elderly through those closures, what initiatives will the Executive introduce to address that social problem?

My understanding is that Highland Council is considering a range of options. It would be inappropriate for me to intervene in that consultation and debate at this stage. However, I believe that the first preference of elderly people who require care would be that they should receive that care in their own home. That should be in the front of the minds of those who are having the discussions that need to take place in Scotland.

Clearly, however, if people cannot be looked after in their own homes, adequate care home provision is needed. Making such provision is difficult when we have an increased aging population, but we have allocated significant funds to doing that. Ultimately, such decisions have to be made by individual local authorities, but I hope that, when they make those decisions, they will have the needs and the welfare of elderly people at the front of their minds.

---

Taser Guns

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive supports operational police officers being routinely equipped with Taser guns. (S2F-2051)

Police officers in Scotland will not be routinely equipped with Taser guns. Tasers will be issued only to authorised firearms officers who have successfully completed an approved training course in the use of the device. Ministers support the use of Tasers provided that certain criteria are met, including adherence to the "Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms", which was drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Decisions to deploy firearms in individual situations are, correctly, a matter for chief constables.

I warmly welcome the First Minister's response. As is the case with plastic bullet rounds, which were first used in Scotland in my constituency just before Christmas, Taser guns are to be given a cautious welcome as an additional, less lethal, alternative to the police using firearms. In addition to the assurances that he has given, will the First Minister ensure that, under the regulatory regime for the appropriate use of Taser guns—by firearms officers who have received the proper training—Tasers will be deployed only under the oversight of very senior police officers; that any use of Taser guns will be thoroughly scrutinised by a police officer from another force; and that the Scottish Executive will not allow the routine deployment of Tasers by police officers, which would itself put police officers and communities at risk? In his consideration of the use of Taser guns, will he take into account the health risks to people who are shot with them?

There were some detailed questions there, on which I am sure the Minister for Justice would be happy to write to the member. I reiterate what I have already said: police officers in Scotland will not be routinely equipped with Taser guns. Only approved officers will have access to them, and only in operational circumstances that are determined by the chief constable in each area. That is the right way for us to conduct ourselves.

At all times, we need to remember that, although Taser guns are a less lethal alternative—they are an attractive option for that reason—their use is important in situations where it might help to control difficult circumstances, including those of their first use in Scotland, which I believe was in a very dangerous incident close to my constituency, and in which I believe their use to have been extremely effective.

That concludes questions to the First Minister. I remind members that they should be back in the chamber at the earlier time of 2 pm for the election of a member to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—