Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Plenary, 13 Dec 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, December 13, 2007


Contents


Question Time


SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE


Rural Affairs and the Environment

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is themed questions on rural affairs and the environment.


Sites of Special Scientific Interest

To ask the Scottish Executive how many sites of special scientific interest there are and how many similar sites are undesignated. (S3O-1586)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

Mr Lochhead is of course in Brussels—as he is for much of the time at present—and I am therefore here representing his, as well as my, interests.

Information on existing sites of special scientific interest is provided on the Scottish Natural Heritage website. As at 30 November 2007, there were 1,456 such sites in Scotland. The SNH website also contains information on the process and criteria for considering whether sites should be designated as SSSIs. That is an on-going process.

Alex Johnstone:

The minister will be aware that Menie Links, in respect of which an application for development has become controversial in a number of ways, is one example of a site of special scientific interest that has become threatened. Will he confirm that Scotland's rich diversity of habitats means that there are a large number of similar sites across Scotland and that, consequently, we can afford to take a reasonable, balanced view as to the priorities of the environment against economic development?

Michael Russell:

I do not think that I should be drawn on the issue of Menie Links and the SSSI. It is well known that SNH is a statutory consultee in such processes.

I entirely agree with the member that Scotland has a rich, diverse network of sites of special scientific interest, which underpin the Natura 2000 sites, special protection areas and other similar sites. They are of local, national and international importance, and we continue to identify them, to celebrate them and to ensure that they contribute to our unique landscape and biodiversity.


Marine Science Scotland

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to meet representatives of Marine Science Scotland. (S3O-1611)

We have received a request for a meeting, and we are considering our response.

Does the Scottish Government agree that if Scotland is to have a powerful and credible voice on fisheries policy, it should do all that it can to promote the breadth and quality of its scientific expertise in that area?

Michael Russell:

I agree with Mr Wilson. The Government has invested in a new fisheries research vessel, costing £4 million, which will come into service at the end of this year. It will further increase the breadth and quality of fisheries research in Scotland.

We must maintain our high standing in fisheries science. The Fisheries Research Services marine laboratory in Aberdeen is a world-renowned institute. The quality of the science and of the scientists in Aberdeen is such that the laboratory is considered to be among the best research laboratories in the whole of Europe. Our scientists continue to play a major role in the development of international advice on fish stocks in the north Atlantic. The Scottish Government will continue to invest in the lab to ensure that its role and reputation remain of the highest order.


Organic Food

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is providing for organic food production. (S3O-1657)

The Scottish Executive will support organic production under the Scottish rural development programme through land-based payments for farmers who wish to convert to organics or to maintain organic farming methods.

Michael McMahon:

Is the minister concerned that the Food Standards Agency currently believes that scientific evidence does not support the view that organically produced food is more beneficial than other food? Can he assure Parliament that the Scottish Government will do more to support organic produce, given that the European Union-funded quality low-input food study showed that there were substantial benefits from organic produce?

Michael Russell:

We believe that organic farming plays a valuable role in helping to protect and enhance the environment and contributes to Scotland's reputation for high-quality produce grown in an environmentally friendly way. During the summer, I was a guest on a number of organic farms where I saw the very high-quality work that is being done. We recognise that there is a growing trend among consumers to seek out organic food. Organic food will definitely be part of our national food policy.

I should point out to the member that the Scottish rural development programme for 2007 to 2013 will continue to provide support for organic farming under the competitive scheme, the rural development contracts and rural priorities. It is expected that the programme will open for proposals early in the new year. The programme's resources for organic production have been increased.

Question 4 has been withdrawn.


Slow Food

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is giving to the slow food movement. (S3O-1578)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

I am grateful for the question because the Scottish Government is enthusiastic—if one can be enthusiastic in a slow way—about the slow food events that are being held. Indeed, the Scottish Government sponsored and was represented at a slow food event in Edinburgh last month, which Margo MacDonald will know about. We hope that the slow food movement, which started in Italy and has expanded, no doubt slowly, across the continent, will contribute to the forthcoming discussion on the national food policy for Scotland. The quality of the food in the national food policy will be influenced by the same type of ideas as lie behind the slow food movement.

Margo MacDonald:

I thank the minister for the slow way that he spoke, because I really understood that.

There may not be much of an understanding of the Cittaslow network of towns among other members. Is the cabinet secretary—I am sorry, the stand-in for the cabinet secretary—aware that at the moment only one town in Scotland, Perth, has applied for Cittaslow status but that it is soon to be joined by Linlithgow? Is there anything that the Scottish Government can do both to help Linlithgow in its bid to join the movement and to publicise the fact that the movement exists?

Michael Russell:

I hope that my presence here is not merely as a stand-in but as an enthusiast for slow food.

The member will be aware, and I am sure that other members will want to be aware, that the original slow food event involved three pig processors who were flown over from Italy to Edinburgh last month. They brought a whole pig carcase and demonstrated how to make salami, sausages, pancetta and all sorts of other delicacies, making creative use of the whole pig. I know that Margo MacDonald would want to see more creative use made of whole pigs and other resources, so I can reassure her that we will encourage slow food wherever events take place. I am happy for us to have discussions with people in Linlithgow who are enthusiastic about such an approach to the good things that we have in Scotland.

Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):

Perth has been granted Cittaslow status—it was given the designation in March 2007. It is part of the job of any city that is given that status to help to publicise the whole movement. Will the minister therefore join me in looking forward to the event that will take place in Parliament in the spring, sponsored by Perth and Kinross Council among others, to help that publicity? I invite the minister to Perth to see the benefits of Cittaslow status. Indeed, I open that invitation to all other members, including you, Presiding Officer. The benefits of Cittaslow status become evident when you visit Perth.

Michael Russell:

I am grateful for the invitation, which I would be happy to take up.

There is a serious point. In developing our food policy in Scotland, we should engage fully with the issues that lie behind the slow food movement. They include reconnecting people with food—particularly locally produced, seasonal food—and making people aware of the methods and environmental impact of production. Local food has different meanings to different people. The Scottish Government supports local food and, therefore, the ideas behind slow food and the movement itself.

John Scott (Ayr) (Con):

The minister will be aware that the slow food movement communities and others were dismayed by the Government's announcement last week that the Scottish rural development programme has been put on hold. In light of the implications for the crucial less favoured areas, where much of the slow food is grown, will the minister give an assurance that the Government is prepared to make payments on an at-risk basis, if required?

I am not sure that that was entirely within the context of the question, but I will leave it to the minister to decide how to respond.

Michael Russell:

It was a creative approach to the question, but I recognise the member's concern and it is a serious point.

I do not accept that the Scottish rural development programme has been put on hold. Both the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and I are very distressed that the further delay has taken place, and we have made it clear what we think of that—to the member and publicly. We are committed to ensuring that payments are made on time—considerable discussion is still going on. We are hopeful that that will be the case and I hope to be able to confirm that to the member shortly.

We recognise the issue and are extremely unhappy that there should be any delay. We do not believe that Scottish producers or farmers should suffer from that. Similarly, we do not believe that there should be any suffering in the woodland sector, where the delay might also affect planting. We will be able to give reassurances to Scottish farmers on our own behalf and via the member.


Loch Long Way

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will support the development of a new recreational route, the Loch Long way. (S3O-1629)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

The Government continues to support all initiatives that encourage recreation and enjoyment of the outdoors—indeed, we debated one of those yesterday in this chamber. It is a matter for the relevant authorities to determine what priority to give to funding for new projects in the light of their other commitments and responsibilities.

Jackie Baillie:

The minister will of course be aware of the west highland way on the east side of Loch Lomond, but I am talking about a proposed new footpath to the west of Loch Lomond which, I am sure everyone agrees, is a truly wonderful new tourism opportunity.

I am grateful to the minister for accepting an invitation to meet those involved in the project but, in the interim, can he do anything to encourage Argyll and Bute Council to devote just a little resource to help the development of the project, which I believe would be of significant long-term benefit to the area?

Michael Russell:

I look forward to speaking to a number of people who are involved in the project, following the arrangement that has been made by the member, and discussing the issue with them.

In an era in which we are encouraging local authorities to work with us in a new relationship, it would be wrong of me to tell any local authority what it should be doing with its resources. However, we encourage every responsible body in Scotland to assess constantly whether such projects fit into their objectives. In the situation that we are discussing, not only Argyll and Bute Council is involved, but bodies such as the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. We hope that all the relevant bodies will consider the plans and possibilities sympathetically, in line with other requirements and budgetary constraints that they might have.

Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP):

The minister will know my enthusiasm for a potential all-Scotland coastal path. Does he agree that developments on the coast, such as the one that Jackie Baillie asked about, and other existing developments, would benefit substantially if they were marketed not only in their own right but as part of the embryonic future all-Scotland coastal path? Does he also agree that there needs to be some national co-ordination if such a scheme is to proceed?

Michael Russell:

I am aware of the member's interest in this matter. Indeed, he was present last night at the launch of a reproduction of Roy's maps of Scotland, the great military maps of 200 years ago that demonstrate how diverse this country is and show that the best route from A to B is not always a direct line but, sometimes, around the coast.

Although I am enthusiastic about the idea of an all-Scotland coastal path, I think that it is going too far to call it an embryo plan—I think that conception has still to take place. We need to discuss at some length how that can be achieved. However, the Loch Long path would, of course, form part of it.


Freshwater Fisheries (Strategic Framework)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied with the level of responses to its consultation on a strategic framework for freshwater fisheries. (S3O-1602)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

The Scottish Government is facilitating consultation on the strategic framework for Scottish freshwater fisheries on behalf of the members of the freshwater fisheries forum steering group. The consultation is on-going, and its closing date is 4 January 2008. Views have been sought from all interests throughout Scotland. In addition to publishing the consultation document, a number of public consultation events have been held around the country.

Michael Matheson:

I draw to the minister's attention the concerns of those involved in angling in Scotland, particularly those who are not members of local angling clubs or national angling groups, that the views of such organisations on protection orders might not be shared by independent anglers. The reason for that is that many angling clubs have protection orders on portions of water that they have the rights to. Can the minister assure me that the responses to the consultation that he receives from individual anglers will be given equal weight to those of the national and local angling clubs that make representations on the operation of protection orders?

Michael Russell:

It has been a comprehensive consultation exercise. To maximise coverage, consultation events were organised at Hampden and in Ayr, Stirling, Peebles, Aberdeen and Dingwall. There was a press launch and there is material on the Government website. More than 1,000 printed copies of the consultation document were distributed to interested parties; member organisations of the freshwater fisheries forum also undertook to make it known to their members. Drop-in surgeries were held, and those surgeries were brought to people's attention so that they could take part.

The document contains proposals for a future management structure for Scottish freshwater fisheries. As the member said, access and protection issues are part of that process. We will treat seriously every response we receive from organisations and individuals. We are aware that some issues are contentious and arouse strong passions on both sides. I assure the member that, when we consider the responses, we will take a fair, balanced view that is based on the informed consent of those who take part in angling. Ultimately, it is they who will determine future policy.


NFU Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of NFU Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S3O-1587)

Both the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and I meet NFU Scotland on a regular basis, as do our officials. At those meetings, we discuss a wide range of current issues that affect farmers in Scotland.

Gavin Brown:

The minister will be aware of the deep-seated concern in the NFU and among farmers throughout Scotland about the impending regulations on nitrate vulnerable zones. Can the minister assure us that the implementation period for the regulations will be as lengthy as possible? Can he spell out exactly what aid he will make available to farmers to meet the costs of these particularly burdensome regulations?

Michael Russell:

This is a serious matter, and I take seriously what the member has said. Recently, the cabinet secretary met Jim McLaren, the president of NFU Scotland, to discuss the revision of the Scottish action programme for NVZs; I have had a similar conversation.

The 1991 nitrates directive is aimed at protecting the water environment across Europe. In 2002, 14 per cent of Scotland was designated as a nitrate vulnerable zone. There is scientific evidence that if slurry is spread on land in the autumn or early winter, a substantial proportion of it—often as much as 30 per cent—is leached to groundwater. If it is spread in spring, very little is leached. Current restrictions on spreading slurry are inadequate to prevent nitrates from getting into water bodies in the NVZs.

We recognise the problems that arise as a result of the new regulations. The Scottish Government intends to allow livestock farmers in the NVZs at least two years to comply, and to provide capital grants of 40 per cent for slurry storage. The Scottish Agricultural College estimates that the total cost of providing slurry storage for livestock farmers in the NVZs who need it will be about £20 million; the member will know that some already have enough storage. Even if the cost of the manure and slurry storage option is £20 million, the call on funding for that option will be £8 million. That is only a small proportion—0.5 per cent—of the £1.6 billion in the Scottish rural development plan.

Since we came into office, we have recognised the difficulty of implementing the regulations and have had detailed and lengthy discussions with the NFU and in Europe. The matter had to be resolved when we were putting the SRDP in place. Although I recognise the difficulties that each farmer who is affected by the regulations faces, the arrangements that I have described are the best possible deal that we could have achieved in the circumstances.

Question 9 was not lodged.


Ship-to-ship Oil Transfers (Firth of Forth)

To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with the UK Government on proposed ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth. (S3O-1664)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

The Scottish Government has been in continuing discussions with the UK Government on the matter. Most recently, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment wrote to Ruth Kelly to express concerns about threats to the environment in the Forth that arise from the proposals and to make the case for her to use the powers that are available under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to address the environmental hazards that are inevitably associated with such transfers.

John Park:

I thank the minister for that useful update. He will be aware that Mark Lazarowicz MP has introduced the Environmental Protection (Transfers at Sea) Bill at Westminster. The bill, which is backed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, is designed to give further protection to the marine environment. Does the minister agree that, given the particular Scottish perspective on the issue, it may be useful for his officials to consider the measures in the bill and to feed any relevant concerns and issues into the wider consultation process?

Michael Russell:

I would be happy to accede to the member's request. The Scottish Government supports the aim of Mark Lazarowicz's bill in the UK Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has made its position on the proposals for the Firth of Forth absolutely clear and we have urged the UK Government to take action. Concerns are expressed well at Westminster and I ask Scottish members of Parliament of all political parties to vote in support of the bill. However, the solution lies in transferring the appropriate powers for control or regulation of ship-to-ship transfers from Westminster to Holyrood.

Tricia Marwick (Central Fife) (SNP):

The minister supports Mark Lazarowicz's bill in principle, but does he agree that a far quicker route would be for the Westminster Government to bring forward the draft regulations on which it said it does not intend to consult before 2008? If the regulations were consulted on quickly, the Westminster Government could put the necessary legislation in place and we would not have to rely on a private member's bill.

Michael Russell:

I made it clear in my first answer to Mr Park that we have made a strong case to Ruth Kelly that she should use the powers that are available under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to address the environmental hazards associated with transfers. The Scottish Parliament has spoken clearly about what it wants to happen and has taken the steps that it can take, which is entirely proper. I strongly believe that Westminster should have acted in the way that we requested. Like Ms Marwick, I am somewhat mystified that, so far, it has refused to do so.


Justice and Law Officers


Antisocial Driving (Residential Areas)

To ask the Scottish Government what remedies are available to deal with persistent and noisy driving of vehicles in residential areas. (S3O-1577)

The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing):

I fully understand the concern in local communities about antisocial driving. A number of remedies are available, including the power to seize vehicles under antisocial behaviour legislation. In addition, police forces have powers to address excessive noise caused by defective or modified exhausts.

I am keen to ascertain what more might need to be done to address antisocial driving. That is why I have specifically included the matter in the review of how we tackle antisocial behaviour, which I announced recently.

Alasdair Morgan:

I am glad that the minister appreciates the annoyance that people in many residential areas suffer as a result of the behaviour of boy racers—as I suppose we might call them—who often are not committing a statutory offence. Can the minister say whether the simple charge of breach of the peace might be appropriate in such cases? If so, will he encourage the police and procurators fiscal to make more use of that remedy?

Fergus Ewing:

Mr Morgan touches on a difficulty that the police face in protecting communities from the driving of vehicles in a way that causes excessive noise. The issue has been the subject of discussions between Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the procurator fiscal, and I am aware that the fiscal recently met Mr Morgan.

We are specifically including the issue in the antisocial behaviour review because there might be a case for reforming the law, if the police think that it is not possible to bring a prosecution because of the technical difficulty of scientifically measuring the noise that vehicles make. I understand that local police and fiscals are carefully considering that and other points, including the suggestion that Mr Morgan rightly made. The use of the catch-all, common-law offence of breach of the peace must be a possibility when evidence exists.

Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab):

Does the minister agree that it is also antisocial and unacceptable that taxi drivers blast their horns in residential areas at all hours of the day and night? Can he advise on the remedies that are available to tackle the problem? Will the issue be included in the review that he mentioned?

Fergus Ewing:

The same general provisions apply to the issue that Elaine Smith raises, which might well cause considerable inconvenience to many people, especially during the hours of darkness, when they are trying to get to sleep so that they can go to work the next day. That is precisely why I specifically directed that the antisocial behaviour review, which is under way, should include the issue. I am delighted that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the police and all other stakeholders are working with us towards that end.

Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab):

Is the minister aware of the successful use of dispersal orders under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to deal with the antisocial behaviour of drivers on the Beach Boulevard in Aberdeen and, more recently, the use of antisocial behaviour orders in collaboration with the local authority? Will he commend that successful use of the legislation to police forces and local authorities elsewhere in Scotland?

Fergus Ewing:

Lewis Macdonald makes an excellent point, for which I commend him and his positive approach to the matter. Dispersal orders have a role to play, as do the powers to seize vehicles in certain circumstances. I praise the pioneering work that was done initially in a pilot by Chief Constable John Vine in Tayside, which was recently rolled out throughout Scotland. Vehicle seizure is a successful and effective tool, but it can be applied only where there is a basis for an antisocial behaviour order, which requires an antisocial behaviour element to the offence, and a breach of the road traffic law. That is precisely why we are looking at the issue again. It might be that we need to do even more to protect communities from excessive noise and disturbance.


Procurators Fiscal (Industrial Action)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to avert industrial action by procurators fiscal. (S3O-1635)

The Solicitor General for Scotland (Frank Mulholland):

Senior management are continuing to work with the FDA, the trade union that represents the legal staff of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, on the pay and grading review that it requested. Fiscals have a long tradition of public service, and I hope that industrial action can be averted.

Malcolm Chisholm:

Does the Scottish Government agree that lawyers in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are paid less than other lawyers at equivalent grade in the Scottish Government? Does it agree that management accepted that there is a shortfall and undertook to address it some time ago? Does it also agree that, as a result of the problem not yet being resolved, there is a problem with staff recruitment and retention in the service? What action has the Scottish Government taken to resolve that worrying dispute? Will it meet at the highest level union leaders to try to resolve the issue before industrial action begins?

The Solicitor General for Scotland:

I will make a number of points. Law officers, the Crown Agent, senior management of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and, I hope, the Parliament and the Scottish public recognise the contribution that Scotland's procurators fiscal make. Their job is demanding. I am very familiar with that, having been a procurator fiscal for more than 20 years. They play a crucial role in the criminal justice process and they have a long and distinguished history of public service.

That said, the service is funded by public money, and any pay deal must be based on proper consideration and evaluation of the issues. That is why, at the request of the unions, the Lord Advocate agreed to a pay and grading review for legal staff. That process involves an independent consultant and it has not yet been completed. Once it has been completed and the unions are involved in the process, it will be considered by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service staff, management and unions. The current pay deal runs until July 2008, and it is proper to wait until the pay and grading review has been completed to assess the conclusions and recommendations of the report, and then deal with the issues in light of it.

Until the pay and grading review has been completed, any industrial action would be premature. I earnestly hope that industrial action is not taken, and that the matter is resolved without it. Senior management continues to work with the trade unions on the pay and grading review.

Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):

I am grateful for the Solicitor General's comments but, as a former procurator fiscal depute and former member of the FDA, I know that the ability of the Procurator Fiscal Service to operate in a competitive staff environment is vital. Does the Solicitor General agree that it is necessary to attract good-quality applicants to the Procurator Fiscal Service and to retain them if the justice system is to work adequately and to a high standard? Is the pay discrepancy with other public sector legal staff unhelpful? Will he take a personal interest in trying to resolve this serious dispute, albeit against the background of the observations that he has just made?

The Solicitor General for Scotland:

I agree on the need to recruit high-quality legal staff to work in the Procurator Fiscal Service. I can inform the Parliament that the turnover of legal staff in the service remains low, at less than 4 per cent. Vacancies attract an average of 34 applications and much larger numbers apply for trainee posts.

The current pay and grading review is considering the issue of comparability with other lawyers in the public sector. I re-emphasise that the review—which is being carried out at the request of the unions—has not yet been completed, so it would not be appropriate to deal with the matter until the review has been dealt with. To reiterate, senior managers are involved in dialogue with the trade unions.

Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):

The fact that the Solicitor General has come fairly late on the scene to this difficulty may inhibit his response, but is he aware that the matter has been outstanding for between five and six years? The difficulties should really have been resolved before now. Will he give an undertaking to the Parliament that everything possible will be done to expedite the outcome of the review and to take the appropriate action that the review decides is necessary?

The Solicitor General for Scotland:

Bill Aitken makes reference to the 2002 Hay Group report, which identified several comparators for fiscals, such as Scottish Government lawyers and Crown Prosecution Service lawyers. However, the existence of a comparator does not necessarily mean that the pay scales in different organisations for staff who perform different jobs must be identical. No perfect comparator exists, although the pay and grading review is considering the issue and will take it into account. It would be inappropriate at this stage to second-guess the conclusions and recommendations of the pay and grading review, but I will say that the senior management—and, in due course, the law officers, when the matter is reported to us—will take due account of those and act accordingly, having regard to the information provided.

I will allow a final supplementary on the question from Tom McCabe.

Tom McCabe (Hamilton South) (Lab):

Like many other members, I have received representations from constituents who work in the service. I am encouraged by some of what the Solicitor General has said. It is important to stress that prosecution lawyers play a vital part in our prosecution system. If they are successful and valued in their work, they bolster confidence in the justice system. I fully realise that pay and grading systems have many anomalies, but can the Solicitor General assure us that he will do all that he can to address the issue? I understand that a pay and grading review is on-going but, to be fair, many such reviews have happened in the past without rectifying the anomaly.

The Solicitor General for Scotland:

The pay and grading review was set up at the request of the unions to consider the matter. As part of its work, the review will look at comparators with other public sector lawyers. While re-emphasising that it is not appropriate at this stage to second-guess the recommendations and conclusions of the review, I will say that due account will be taken of those both by the unions and by senior management in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Once the review has been carried out, the dialogue and negotiations will continue.


Corporate Manslaughter (Legislation)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has any plans to review the legislation on corporate manslaughter. (S3O-1600)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):

Our immediate priority is to ensure the successful implementation of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which was brought in by the UK Government and comes into force in April 2008. The act sends a robust message to organisations that failure to meet their duty of care to employees and the public will not be tolerated.

Can the cabinet secretary explain how the concerns of victims, families and trade unions over the apparent lack of individual responsibility have been and will be addressed?

Kenny MacAskill:

We recognise that a majority on the expert group on corporate homicide considered that there should be a secondary offence for individual directors or senior managers whose actions or omissions significantly contribute to the new corporate killing offence. However, we also recognise that the 2007 act does not provide for such an offence. We will therefore monitor the act. Equally, it is fair to say that the opportunity remains for people who carry out such acts, or who fail to carry out such acts, to be prosecuted by way of a culpable homicide offence under common law or other statutory offences under the health and safety at work regulations.

Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):

Unfortunately, few prosecutions have been brought on the grounds that the cabinet secretary outlined. The forthcoming public inquiry into the Stockline disaster may provide an opportunity to test the efficacy of the provisions under the current legislation and highlight areas that require to be strengthened.

Given that the Government has undertaken to introduce a criminal justice bill in the autumn, will the cabinet secretary undertake to meet me and my colleague Patricia Ferguson to discuss whether there is scope to include in the bill further measures to enhance the situation in Scotland? That would ensure that our families and workforce are given greater protection than at present.

Kenny MacAskill:

It would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the outcome of the Stockline inquiry. Clearly, as a Government, we are glad that we could progress the matter expeditiously. The Lord Advocate has commented at length on the matters that are involved. Obviously, I am happy to meet members whenever I can, subject to diary commitments.

We are seeking to monitor how the 2007 act works out. I say to Ms Gillon that it was introduced by a Labour Government south of the border, with the support of the Labour Administration in Scotland—an Administration that was in power for eight years. If she is so desperate to meet members of this Government because matters appear to be so appallingly bad, questions have to be asked about why the last Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration failed to implement the measures in the first place.


Pleural Plaques (Planned Legislation)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the timetable is for its planned legislation to reverse the House of Lords judgment of 17 October 2007 on pleural plaques. (S3O-1617)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill):

On 29 November 2007, we announced our decision to introduce a bill to reverse the House of Lords judgment of 17 October on pleural plaques. We also announced that the provisions of the bill would take effect from the date of the judgment.

The effects of asbestos are a terrible legacy of Scotland's industrial past, and we should not turn our backs on those who contributed to our nation's wealth. We have, therefore, acted quickly to reassure people who have been diagnosed with pleural plaques through being negligently exposed to asbestos that they will continue to be able to raise an action for damages. We are determined that the legislation should be thoroughly prepared and properly scrutinised. That will include consultation on a draft regulatory impact assessment. Subject to parliamentary timetabling, I expect to introduce the bill before the summer recess.

Robert Brown:

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that detailed answer and the announcement on the new legislation. Clearly, there are implications for current actions that are in court. What is his guidance on that, including on any time bar that may have to be dealt with? As he said, the new provisions will take effect from the date of the judgment. Has he had discussions with UK Government ministers on the potential for similar legislation at Westminster? Obviously, as many Scottish claimants worked in England, their cause of action arises there.

Kenny MacAskill:

We have been advised that the UK Government's position is that it is not prepared to legislate to address the anomaly that we believe the House of Lords judgment has raised. Our position is simple: we seek to continue with the situation that has applied in Scotland for 20 years. Obviously, I cannot comment on the situation south of the border: that is a matter for the UK Government. If UK Government ministers wish to discuss the matter, we will be happy to do so. Clearly, as Mr Brown knows, our taking action is a virtue of devolution.

We intend that the bill should apply from 17 October 2007. We are aware of one case in Scotland that has been decided since the judgment. It is fair to say that the bill's provisions on retrospection are under careful consideration. We are talking about a complicated matter of law. I am unable to comment further, except to say that our legal advisers are looking at matters to ensure that we protect not only those who are involved in current and future cases, but those whose cases have been decided.


Antisocial Behaviour

To ask the Scottish Executive what its priorities are in tackling antisocial behaviour. (S3O-1650)

The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing):

The Government is committed to tackling antisocial behaviour. We would like more emphasis to be placed on prevention and earlier intervention. In particular, we would like our young people to be provided with more positive opportunities that help to instil a sense of personal and collective responsibility.

Johann Lamont:

Who could possibly disagree with that? Indeed, in my constituency, the local housing association, along with others, funded a significant play facility for young people for precisely the reason that the minister identified. However, does the minister agree that, along with prevention, he must reassure my constituents and others that enforcement action against antisocial behaviour will remain a priority, given, for example, that the play area that I mentioned has been trashed and young people now have no access to it? Will the minister outline how he plans to engage with local communities and say whom he has met and whom he plans to meet in his review of antisocial behaviour policy? Will the reports of the meetings be available for public consideration?

Fergus Ewing:

I am pleased to provide Johann Lamont with the absolute assurance that we take very seriously the need to take appropriate and effective action on enforcement. On consultation, I recently addressed a conference of community safety partnership representatives in Edinburgh and a conference of community wardens in Dunblane. I am happy to meet members who have a particular point to make. However, I suggest to Johann Lamont that we all want to work together to build consensus and to provide our young people—a very small minority of whom cause problems—with more choices and chances, so that we prevent them from undertaking criminal activity and lead them towards a more productive life, rather than simply hand out bits of paper called antisocial behaviour orders, which plainly do not get to the root cause of the problem.