Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
Resumed debate.
We now continue with consideration of stage 3 amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Members should refer to the bill, the second marshalled list, which contains all the amendments selected for today's debate, and today's groupings list.
I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division following the debate on the first group of amendments. Thereafter, a voting period of one minute will be allowed for the first division after the debate on a group. All other divisions will be 30 seconds.
Section 61—Police custody and security officers
Amendment 71 is grouped with amendments 72, 73 and 100 to 107.
I will start with amendments 71 to 73. It was unfortunate that the power to enable police authorities to contract out the provision of certain services, mainly in police stations, was removed by amendment at stage 2. The order of stage 2 business meant that we did not have the opportunity to demonstrate that we had accepted members' concerns about the impact of our proposals in court premises and that we would have supported an amendment to remove the power to contract out in relation to the provision of police custody and security officer functions in court premises.
As a result, the bill as it now stands precludes contracting out completely. It would be unfortunate if we left it that way. In particular, we would be ignoring the recommendations made by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and representations from chief constables.
Although we accept that there is a case against contracting out court functions that are undertaken by the police service, I have heard no strong arguments against giving police authorities the option to contract out turnkey and escorting duties. We have never said that police authorities must contract out anything. However, as responsible bodies with budgets that will exceed £900 million next year and a duty to deliver best value, they must at least be given the tools to do the job. Amendments 71 to 73 will provide a balanced and reasonable position on contracting out PCSO services.
Amendments 71 and 72 will restore the power of police authorities to contract out the provision of PCSO services, but amendment 73 will rule out the use of PCSOs—other than those employed by a police force—in court premises. As a result, only PCSOs employed directly by the police authority could fulfil the duties and provide PCSO services in and around court buildings. I firmly believe that the amendments will achieve our aims of effective service delivery and best use of resources without compromising safety and court order.
Amendments 100 to 103 relate to the training to be provided to PCSOs. Throughout consideration of section 61, we have made it clear that PCSOs will be fully and professionally trained to deal with the circumstances in which they will be operating. Jim Wallace set out the position in a letter to the convener of the Justice 2 Committee on 3 December. In a letter to the committee on 9 December, the honourable secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the chief constable of Strathclyde police subsequently confirmed that appropriate job-specific training would be provided to PCSOs.
The Scottish police service already operates to very high standards. The police have given assurances that the high professional standards that apply in training for police duties generally will apply equally to PCSO services. I believe that that is satisfactory. I also strongly resist any measure to regulate for the level and standards of training carried out by police forces. That is an operational matter for chief constables and should remain so. It would be wholly inappropriate to make an exception for PCSOs. The tripartite basis on which policing in Scotland operates sets out clear roles for Scottish ministers, for police authorities and for chief constables. It would be wrong for the Parliament to consider legislation that cuts across that long-standing position.
Amendment 104 relates to contractual arrangements with third parties for PCSO services. The police already have arrangements to ensure that appropriate contract monitoring takes place for services provided by third parties. From 1 April 2003, every local authority, including police authorities, will have a duty under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 to secure best value for the functions that they discharge. The new duty requires the authority to maintain an appropriate balance between the quality of the performance of its functions and the cost to the authority of that performance. It is for chief constables and others within the police authority to ensure that those requirements are met.
That will include arrangements with a third-party provider on the handling of complaints and disciplinary matters. As a result, any police authority that seeks to secure PCSO services from a third party should have robust contract compliance and monitoring arrangements in place to ensure a high-quality, professional standard of service and to represent best value for public expenditure. I therefore see no good reason to require third parties to provide reports to ministers or the Parliament on what is rightly the responsibility of the police.
Amendments 105 and 106 relate to the duties of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. With regard to amendment 105, HMIC already has a duty, if directed, to visit and inquire into any general matter concerning a police force. HMIC currently inspects all aspects of a force, including officers and support staff. It will therefore inspect the use of PCSOs as a matter of course. The law does not need to be amended to achieve the intention behind amendment 105. Amendment 105 is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment 106 is also inappropriate. The Scottish ministers have already given a firm commitment to propose measures to regulate the private security industry. The authority established to undertake that role would be the appropriate body to inspect private sector organisations involved in the provision of PCSO services. That body could in any case consult HMIC.
I assume that the intention underlying amendment 107 is to ensure that a contractor who enters into a contract with a police authority to provide PCSO services is subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Section 5 of that act already provides for the Scottish ministers to make an order in respect of relevant services provided by a person under a contract with a Scottish public authority if it is considered appropriate to make such an order. We will consider that as and when appropriate. Amendment 107 is therefore unnecessary.
I move amendment 71.
It is not the Scottish National Party's intention to support amendments 71 to 73. Those amendments seek to reverse a change that was made at stage 2 and that we believe was appropriate. The change was supported by the convener of the Justice 2 Committee, Pauline McNeill, and by the deputy convener, Bill Aitken, which shows the extent of cross-party concern about the general issue. At stage 2, Pauline McNeill and Bill Aitken both voted to ensure that PCSOs would be under the direct control of the chief constable.
The SNP is conditionally in favour of chief constables having the power to employ civilians to guard courts and to move prisoners around, if the chief constable believes that that is an appropriate use of the funds at his disposal and if it frees up police officers for other duties.
However, concerns have been raised and they must be addressed. The Scottish Police Federation was concerned that PCSOs would have to be paid for out of the police budget. That would mean that the number of police officers available for other duties would be reduced, which would give chief constables less flexibility. Furthermore, sheriffs expressed concerns about safety in courts if no police officers were present.
The proposed transfer of powers from the police to civilians is substantial and includes the right to deprive a member of the public of their liberty and to use force to do so. As has been pointed out, the police are trained carefully in the use of force and there is concern that PCSOs should be trained to the same standards. The Scottish Police Federation also questioned whether the employment of PCSOs would lead to any savings. It is important that the Parliament should have assurances from the minister on those matters, but I am not sure that what he has said so far gives those assurances.
As I said, the SNP opposes the contracting out of PCSOs. The fact that there was broad cross-party support at stage 2 shows that there is wide concern about whether that role should be privatised. If police powers to search and restrain prisoners and to keep people in custody are to be transferred to civilians, it is appropriate that there should be a sufficient guarantee of the training and proper behaviour of those civilians. Civilians who are employed directly by a chief constable are accountable to the police board and to HMIC. Private security forces are not.
I will talk briefly about our amendments 100 to 107, which deal with some of the problems of accountability in private security forces. Generally, the amendments would introduce basic standards for the training of PCSOs, require PCSOs and the companies that employ them to be open to inspection by HMIC, require the companies to report on misconduct by their officers and ensure openness by bringing the companies under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Without the guarantees, the contracting out of PCSOs is flawed. I know that the minister addressed one or two of the issues in his opening remarks and I will deal with what he said as we go through.
I am a little puzzled by amendment 73. I would be interested to hear more detail about it from the minister, because it appears to be almost contrary to the whole idea of contracting out. I am not quite sure where it fits within the general parameters of the way in which the minister is proceeding. The amendment almost suggests that there will be two categories of PCSOs—the truly contracted-out ones who will deliver the prisoner to the court building and the civilian security officers who are employed by the chief constable in the court building, presumably to take delivery of the prisoner. There now seem to be two, almost separate categories of civilian officer. That is strange, but it is certainly better that the handover at least is to people who are under the direct control of the chief constable.
Amendments 100 and 101 are about training and are fairly self-explanatory. The officers should be trained in searching—that must be clear and up front from the start. They should also be trained in the use of handcuffs and other means of restraint—that, too, should be clear and up front. I have referred to some of the concerns that were expressed on the issue at stage 2. I do not understand why the minister is so against amendments 100 and 101. I suspect that ultimately we will have a group of people involved in restraint who are not trained to the same level as the police.
Amendments 102 and 103 are also about training. I want to hear rather more from the minister than the bland assurances that he gave about the basic standards that will be required of the officers. We are moving into a situation where we will have a two and even three-tier system of security officers. Although it is important that we free up properly trained police officers to do as many of the jobs as possible that they are required to do, it is equally important that the people who are involved in control and restraint in particular are trained to the same standards.
Amendment 104 would require private providers of PCSOs to give an annual report on numbers, salaries, staff turnover, complaints against officers and disciplinary offences committed by officers. Individual police forces report on those matters in their annual reports and are scrutinised by HMIC. It is in the public interest that that information should be made available so that people know how their public services are performing. I am afraid that, with privatisation, those matters have a way of becoming secret, especially if the figures look embarrassing. One only has to examine the experience with Kilmarnock prison, where staff turnover, staff numbers, grievance procedures and bullying are all matters of secrecy. The fragmentation and privatisation of the justice system means that public accountability tends to be lost. Amendment 104 is an attempt to stem that tide.
Amendment 105 would make those PCSOs who are employed by private companies subject to inspection by HMIC. I think that I heard the minister give an assurance that that would be the case. If that assurance is repeated at the close of the debate, I will reconsider pressing amendment 105, but I seek a categoric assurance that privately employed PCSOs will be subject to inspection in the same way as the police force is.
On amendment 106, I think that I heard the minister making a commitment in respect of inspections. Once again, if I hear categoric assurances at the end of the debate, I will not press amendment 106 but, at the moment, I am not sure whether the assurance has been categoric.
I regard amendment 107 in the same way. The amendment would make private companies that employ PCSOs subject to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 as public authorities. If ministers do not wish to accept amendment 107, I will be looking for something cast iron from the minister that the Scottish ministers will use their powers under section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to designate the private providers of PCSOs as public authorities.
During the passage of the bill, we have repeatedly sought assurances that that would be done. I know that the Minister for Justice said:
"Major private sector suppliers of public services—such as those involved in Her Majesty's Prison Kilmarnock—should, arguably, be candidates for designation under the bill … It is our intent that that provision will be used to bring within the scope of freedom of information legislation private companies that are involved in significant public work, such as private companies that are involved in major PFI contracts."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 5 February 2002; c 3162-64.]
I want a categoric assurance today that the PCSO companies will be made subject to the powers under section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. If I get that categoric assurance, I will not press amendment 107.
This is another part of the bill that has proved problematic, with members holding differing views irrespective of party affiliations. The wishes of the Executive are perfectly understandable—it rightly seeks to free up police officers for more active duties and recognises that there is a potential cost saving in using civilians to carry out some duties that are normally carried out by police officers. However, there are a number of contrary arguments, relating to the fact that the experience down south has not been a universal success and recognising that courts are, in the normal course of events, fraught places where there is always a potential for difficulty—the suggestion that such difficulties are less likely where there is a police presence is a credible view.
From personal observation, I must comment that many of the officers who at present perform police court duties tend to be, through no fault of their own, less likely to be effective in general operational duties. There is a strong possibility that, were the Executive's provisions to be introduced on a blanket basis, many of those officers would have to be retired early on health grounds, with a consequent effect on the police pension fund and a reduction in the saving that the Executive seeks to make.
Once again, on a fine balance we are prepared to go along with the proposals. However, we feel that there is a lack of clarity in amendment 73, which we ask the minister to deal with more fully when he sums up. The determining factor for us is that, although civilianisation to such a degree will be an option open to chief constables, it will not be incumbent on them. We go along with the proposal on the clear understanding that chief constables will not be pressured by the justice department to go along the route that the bill proposes and that they can make their decisions with unfettered discretion, as opposed to under Scottish Executive influence.
On that basis, we find Roseanna Cunningham's amendments 100 to 103 to be largely too restrictive. We expect chief constables to ensure that the necessary training is given to custody officers and we see no need to legislate on that.
Conversely, we see merit in amendment 104 and related amendments 105 to 107. If the exercise is to be undertaken, it is only appropriate to have an inspection and reporting mechanism. Amendments 104 to 107 would create that. We will finalise our viewpoint after we have heard the minister's clarification, but the amendments have merit and my inclination is to support them.
It is fair to say that the Justice 2 Committee had many concerns about the provisions. Roseanna Cunningham was correct: the committee did much cross-party work to deal with those concerns. Duncan Hamilton and I spent many weeks questioning the Executive on the need for the policy, which would give chief constables the power to create, if they so wished, a different balance in our courts between police officers and a new breed of officers—police custody and security officers.
As I understand the matter, the Executive's original position was that chief constables would have the power to contract out the service, but the committee convinced the Executive that that should not happen and that any chief constables who civilianised the role of police officers to free up officers for front-line duties should do so only in so far as the civilian officers were managed by the police. I feel strongly about that. I have much faith in our police force and in its ability to train and discipline a civilian force. We will pass serious powers to PCSOs. In our courts, they will have the powers to restrain individuals and to apprehend people who cause difficulties.
It is fair to say that many people who work in our criminal courts—not least High Court judges and procurators fiscal—are concerned about getting the balance right in our courts. Some reassurances on that are due from the Executive. I accept that the number of police officers in our courts is an operational matter for chief constables to decide, but Parliament expects that, when or if PCSOs are employed, a proper balance will be struck and a sizeable police presence will remain. In Glasgow sheriff court, for example, a police presence is needed to deal with criminals and other people.
At stage 2, the Justice 2 Committee said that it would be concerned about further contracting out. Before we go any further, we must be clear that the Executive's amendments will not put out to tender the role of police custody and security officers; the PCSOs will form a civilian force. However, I would still like assurances about our expectations of our chief constables to ensure that the right balance is struck. Training must be considered at a future date, so that we are satisfied that the powers are correct.
It is reasonable for the Parliament to seek assurances before we close the matter. If the objective is to free up police officers for the front line, the Parliament will expect to see the evidence that those officers are serving on the front line, because that is the policy objective. It would be useful if the Executive gave us some idea of where we will end up if its amendments are agreed to.
As Pauline McNeill said, the Justice 2 Committee was concerned about the possibility that no police officers would be on duty in our courts. The concern was that, if the bill as introduced was passed, security in courts would be put at risk. It was interesting to note the evidence to the committee from the Scottish Police Federation, which said that officers who were allocated to court duty might be unfit for front-line duties. That rather undermined the argument that the changeover to contracting out would reduce security in court.
At stage 2, the committee reached consensus, although there was some confusion about what was being voted on. Executive amendments 71 to 73 allay the fundamental concern, which was about security in our courthouses, so I support them. However, like Pauline McNeill, I realise that discretion will be given to the chief constable, who will decide how he uses the officers whom section 61 frees up. I hope that the minister will guarantee to the chamber that officers who are freed up as a result of the provision will undertake front-line policing and that more police will be on our streets. That is the purpose behind the provision, which we all support, and we would like ministers to guarantee that that will happen.
As Pauline McNeill said, several members of the Justice 2 Committee—including her and me—lodged stage 2 amendments to remove the option of contracting out. It is important that the minister should be aware that the amendment to which the committee agreed was passed unanimously. The committee took the view that, not only in courts, but in principle, it had a problem with the passing to civilians of important powers without the necessary safeguards of training or disciplinary procedures.
Amendment 73 seems to show confusion about the difference between opposition to the principle and the special exemption for the court—although we are not really talking about an exemption for the court, as it remains possible for civilians to fulfil the role, albeit in a slightly different capacity. The amendment does not allay the committee's concerns. As the Scottish Police Federation said, the one place in which we are guaranteed to have a collection of criminals and stress is the courtroom. Of all the places where we want reinforcement, surely to goodness the courtroom is where we want the advantage of trained police officers in uniform to reinforce the dignity of the court and the requirement for reasonable and respectful behaviour. That is eminently sensible.
Today, as at stage 2, the financial aspects have been mentioned. The committee could not conclude whether cost savings would be made. Neither the Executive nor any other witnesses assured us that savings would be made. When the Scottish Police Federation was asked about that, it said:
"When the expected salaries for the post, training costs, equipment and the loss of flexibility currently offered by police officers are considered, it is questionable if the introduction of such a scheme would stand financial scrutiny in terms of best value."
Does the Executive oppose Roseanna Cunningham's amendments, which would provide for that training, because it wants to cut costs rather than to provide the best service? If so, that is truly lamentable.
I acknowledge that the Executive has moved some way towards the Justice 2 Committee's viewpoint, but I ask it to reconsider, even at this late stage, the principle of civilians taking on duties that should properly be undertaken by police officers or at least by those who are under the chief constable's direction. The courts—and the ancillary duties of taking people to and from court—are a matter of profound public concern. Even now, the minister should reconsider the idea that a civilian in court would pass someone to a contracted-out civilian employee. If an attempt was made to break free, there might be confusion over who had the power of arrest and over what would happen if a public complaint was made about disciplinary procedures.
We must get through groups 22 and 23 by 10.12 am, so I give my regrets to Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr McAllion, whom I cannot call to speak.
I will briefly deal with some of the points that have been made. Concerns have been expressed about financial issues. Roseanna Cunningham and George Lyon spoke about potential budget savings. Roseanna Cunningham asked whether, if money was removed from the police budget, the number of police constables would be reduced and, conversely, George Lyon asked for an assurance that any money that was saved would release police constables for the front line.
Chief constables will be allowed to use their resources most appropriately to get the best value from them and to improve the service that they provide and the wider public's confidence and security. Our proposals are not about reducing the number of police officers by using civilians. Equally, it would be wrong for ministers or the Parliament to try to say how the chief constables should use their budgets. That is an operational matter for the chief constables. However, the chief constables have told us clearly that, if they have the discretion to use civilians where that is appropriate, they will be able to free up resources to improve services at the front line.
Jim Wallace's letter of December 2002 to Pauline McNeill, the convener of the Justice 2 Committee, cites the example of Lothian and Borders police. Currently, some 40 police officers are deployed routinely to Edinburgh High Court and to Edinburgh sheriff court. Lothian and Borders police believe that those courts could be policed by a mixture of officers and PCSOs with the appropriate powers. The chief constable of Lothian and Borders police believes that, if PCSOs were to be used, 30 court custody officers could be employed, releasing five officers to front-line duties. In other words, Lothian and Borders police would make an operational decision to put more police officers on front-line duties as a result of the provisions.
I ask for clarification, as there might be confusion about the powers that the bill will give. Am I right in saying that the chief constables will have the power to civilianise the role of the police custody officers in the courts if they want to do so but that they will not be able to contract it out?
Absolutely. Although Roseanna Cunningham clarified her comments, her initial remarks created some confusion. Amendment 71 will ensure that those who are employed in the courts—if chief constables choose to employ civilians—will be employed by the police. The work will not be contracted out.
I recognise the advantages of employing civilian officers in the mustering of witnesses and the like. That job could easily be done by a civilian. However, does the minister agree that there is a proper solemnity that attaches to the proceedings in our courts, especially in the sheriff courts and the High Court? Furthermore, despite the improvements that have been made in court design, there are still substantial issues about the safety of witnesses, prosecutors, judges and sheriffs. Will ministers make it clear to chief constables that, in achieving the balance that is expected, those aspects must be properly taken into account?
The issues of security and solemnity, along with other matters in the courts, will be taken seriously. Again, that will come down to operational decisions that are made by the chief constables. I have heard nothing to suggest that chief constables would do anything other than ensure the highest level of security in the courts.
I am aware of the time pressure, but I will quickly address some of the other questions that have been raised. I hope that I have made it clear that there will be no contracting out of security services in courts. Beyond the courts, chief constables will be able to contract out certain duties. That will not be mandatory, but it can be done if they believe that it is appropriate. The training of officers is a matter for the police; the civilians will be inspected by HMIC. Finally, a question was raised concerning the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. As I have said, that act will apply and will be used under the direction of ministers when we believe that that is necessary. I give that assurance.
The question is, that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Abstentions
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 66, Against 27, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 71 agreed to.
Amendment 72 moved—[Hugh Henry].
The question is, that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Abstentions
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 67, Against 27, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Amendment 73 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.
Amendment 101 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The question is, that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 27, Against 67, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 101 disagreed to.
Amendment 100 not moved.
Amendment 102 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The question is, that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 67, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 102 disagreed to.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If there are to be more divisions on this group of amendments, can we have them all at once to save time?
That would be difficult, because I expect Miss Cunningham to move some amendments but not to move others. We will press on and try to get to your amendment 74 as quickly as possible. However, we are almost out of time.
Amendment 103 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The question is, that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 68, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 103 disagreed to.
Amendment 104 moved—[Roseanna Cunningham].
The question is, that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 61, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 104 disagreed to.
Amendments 105 to 107 not moved.
After section 61
Amendment 74 moved—[Dennis Canavan].
The question is, that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 30, Against 69, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 74 disagreed to.
Amendment 75 is grouped with amendment 76.
Amendment 75 refers to assaults on emergency personnel. Parliament passed the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill to protect our wildlife and we will deal later with a section of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that is also about protecting wildlife. I want to give effect to the public's opinion that Parliament should ensure that we also protect those who deliver a public service in our community from people who attack them. There is no more repulsive act than that of people attacking firefighters or paramedics who are trying to save lives. That is the theme of amendment 75.
During stage 2, I lodged an amendment that was equivalent to amendment 75. The minister advised me that he had difficulties with that amendment because it did not embrace all our public service personnel. If the Executive and the Lord Advocate are not willing to accept amendment 75, I seek two assurances from them: first, that whatever legislation is introduced will deal strictly and robustly with those who attack public service personnel and that the attackers will feel the full weight of the law; and, secondly, that the legislation will be carefully monitored to ensure that it is effective.
I move amendment 75.
I will deal first with amendment 75. Assaults on emergency services personnel cannot and should not be tolerated. I have little doubt that Paul Martin lodged amendment 75 because of painful and unpleasant experiences in his constituency. It is deplorable that firefighters and others who carry out their duties in conditions that are often extremely dangerous should have that level of danger increased by the actions of the irresponsible and the downright wicked.
We see considerable merit in amendment 75. I draw members' attention to the fact that, under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, assaults on police officers can be dealt with on the basis that Paul Martin suggests. Amendment 75 simply seeks to extend such protection to others who carry out similarly valuable public services. Indeed, it could be argued that emergency ambulance crews, for example, are less equipped to deal with violent behaviour than are trained police officers. We acknowledge that there is a danger in specifying those who would be entitled to the additional protection that amendment 75 proposes. Nevertheless, we think that amendment 75 is worth while and we will support it.
Amendment 76 also deals with the protection of police officers. It is unfortunate but true that many of those who commit crimes are drug abusers who inject, and that with such habits goes the problem of HIV and other infections, which frequently cause tragic results. If a police officer is assaulted by being scratched, bitten or spat on, it is possible that they will be infected with HIV. Medical testing takes time and would normally need to be done on at least two separate occasions over three to four months in order to assure an assaulted officer and his or her family that any virus present in the arrested person who assaulted the officer had not been transmitted.
It is not too difficult to imagine the degree of concern that must be felt during such an interval. Amendment 76 seeks to allay that concern by requiring an arrested person to provide an appropriate sample on arrest. It is obvious that that would not resolve the problem in every case but if an accused person were to test negative, it is clear that that problem would immediately be resolved. It might be argued that if an arrested person were to test positive for a virus, it might make the situation more worrying for an assaulted officer. However, it is important that people should know as early as possible exactly what the situation is.
Amendment 76 would provide considerable reassurance to police officers and their families, and I commend it to members.
I support the intention behind amendment 75, which is in the name of my colleague, Paul Martin. Last September, following brutal and unprovoked attacks on fire service personnel who were on their way to save lives, I instigated a members' business debate on the issue, which was supported by a large number of members across the parties. Paramedics and ambulance personnel also face the threat of violence in the line of duty.
I support the intention behind amendment 75, but I think that there is scope for further work to be done in relation to other emergency service personnel, particularly those who work in accident and emergency departments. Day in and day out, they face the threat of violence in a way that many of us find abhorrent. We cannot understand why such violence happens. I seek assurances from the Lord Advocate, if he is to respond to the debate, that the Executive will move forward on the issue and will take a clear and unequivocal stance in relation to attacks on emergency service personnel, who provide public services. Such attacks cannot and will not be tolerated in a modern Scotland. I also ask him to clarify why a provision exists to protect the police, whereas there is no equivalent provision for other emergency service personnel.
As I have some sympathy with Bill Aitken's amendment, I ask the Lord Advocate to clarify exactly what the Executive's position is on the matter that it deals with. If anyone else required a sample to be provided to let them find out whether they were in danger of contracting a life-threatening illness or disease, that would naturally happen, but police staff seem unable to receive that support. It is vital that the police get the reassurance and comfort that a sample would give them. They should be able to have the tests that would reassure them that their lives are not in danger and that would ensure that they do not have to live with unjustified worry.
I welcome the support that Karen Gillon has given to Bill Aitken's amendment 76. On many occasions in this chamber, the Lord Advocate has been extremely reasonable, but I hope that we do not hear only assurances from him today. I would like him to go further and support amendment 76.
The Public Petitions Committee received a petition on the topic that Bill Aitken's amendment deals with. It highlighted a case in which a policeman whose wife was expecting a child had been attacked in such a way. The weight on his mind and his wife's mind was horrendous and the case resulted in some fairly tragic circumstances. That example received the sympathy of every member who heard the presentation at the Public Petitions Committee meeting. On the basis of that evidence alone, Bill Aitken's amendment would be well worth accepting.
We expect much from our police officers. They are on the front line and protect the weak in society from the strong. In so doing, I believe that they should expect whatever protection we can give them, provided that it is not unfair. Bill Aitken's amendment is not unfair to anybody. When a criminal is convicted of a crime, he expects and receives from our custodial system a recognition of his welfare and well-being. Furthermore, he is treated by the prison service in a way that involves every possible method of bringing about rehabilitation and a change of attitude, and his human rights are looked after. However, the policeman who has been left with a massive question mark over his health after an incident in which blood contamination might have taken place will get no such protection if we ignore Bill Aitken's amendment today.
I plead with every member in this chamber to support Bill Aitken's extremely reasonable amendment. This is not a political issue; it is an issue that involves our support for our policemen.
I have no difficulty with amendment 75. Paul Martin made a good case and put his amendment well. His amendment also deserves the support of the chamber.
I support amendment 75. I have previously lodged motions and amendments on the same subject. The members' business debate that Karen Gillon secured on the subject of attacks on fire crews was well attended. It is important that this chamber sends out the message that we should give the best possible protection to fire crews, paramedics and other members of the emergency services when they are doing their jobs on our behalf.
I would particularly like to highlight an issue that Karen Gillon touched on: the situation in our accident and emergency centres on Friday and Saturday nights. The way in which our health service workers are being treated is unacceptable. If we do not accept Paul Martin's amendment, I seek clear assurances from the Lord Advocate and the Executive that they will pursue the matter and quickly come back to Parliament with proposals for a way forward. However, I believe that we really ought to accept amendment 75.
I suspect that members across the chamber will have considerable sympathy with amendment 76, with the intention behind Douglas Keil's petition, PE482, and with Constable Pratt's predicament, which Phil Gallie mentioned. I pay tribute to the work that Constable Pratt does in the constabulary in my constituency.
I hope that the Executive responds to the policy intention behind, rather than the wording of, amendment 76. It is so widely drafted that it includes not only the police constable's assailant but "another person", who could be the victim or any other person in the area. I hope that the minister will address both that issue and the problem that arises from the use of the word "subsequently", the interpretation of which is simply too wide.
I urge ministers to consider the despicable situation that a number of police officers face when people deliberately cut themselves and threaten police officers with infection. Such situations are made worse when, as part of some exquisite playing-out of bravado, they suggest that they will not assist the police officer, or they heckle or threaten the police officer who is simply performing his duties on behalf of us all. That cannot be tolerated and I hope that ministers will produce a positive policy resolution that will address a problem that will not go away.
Amendment 75 deals with an important matter. Trade unions have long complained about attacks on their members—nurses, midwives, those who work in accident and emergency services and so on—not being taken seriously. One of the reasons for that is that such attacks are not always reported. I am pretty sure that the Executive will tell us that it is taking the matter seriously and recognises the need for a campaign to make people realise that any attack on a national health service worker is a crime and should be reported. I am sure that such attacks will be properly dealt with by our prosecution system.
I also have sympathy with amendment 76. However, it will suffer from the fact that we have had only a few days in which to consider it. If the amendment falls, it is not unreasonable to ask the Executive for a commitment that it will give Parliament a chance to examine the issue. Perhaps a parliamentary committee could spend some time examining what happens to police officers on our streets. I think that there must be some protection in that regard and I welcome Bill Aitken's contribution to the debate.
Will the member give way?
I had finished speaking, but I will allow Mr Gallie to speak.
In that case, I doubly thank Pauline McNeill.
I put it to her that the issue that amendment 76 deals with is an important one for this Parliament to deal with in its last few days. Does she agree that it would be better for us not to pass the buck to future parliamentarians but to take the opportunity to deal with the issues in the amendment today, if the Lord Advocate can be persuaded that his comments will be sufficient to guard against the difficulties that Brian Fitzpatrick warned us of?
It is because I believe that the proposal is worthy of detailed examination and must be got right that I believe it would be wrong to agree to the amendment today. The reason why I chose to speak on the issue—I am sure that it is also Brian Fitzpatrick's reason—is that I do not want us to lose sight of the fact that work has to be done on the issue.
We must ensure that we use the committee system to give the proposal the scrutiny that we would give to any piece of legislation. It would be wrong to take the view that, because we agree with the principle behind the amendment, we should simply agree to it today.
The Lord Advocate (Colin Boyd):
I will respond to amendment 75; Hugh Henry will respond to Bill Aitken's amendment 76.
Paul Martin has raised an important issue. Every day, members of our emergency services face dangerous situations and they should be able to carry out their duties in the knowledge that they will be protected against assault or obstruction. Anybody who assaults a firefighter while he is putting out a fire clearly puts the public, as well as firefighters and other emergency personnel, in danger.
Of course, not only firefighters but other public service workers require the full protection of the law. Karen Gillon referred to ambulance personnel, hospital doctors and nurses in accident and emergency clinics, and I have received representations on behalf of transport workers such as bus and train drivers. They all provide a service to the public and, because of that service, put themselves at varying degrees of risk of assault, such as the police officer who makes the arrest, the firefighter who fights the fire or the bus driver on the night bus.
Amendment 75 seeks to ensure that the criminal law fully protects members of our emergency services against attack. I agree with the motivation behind the amendment. Laws that allow prosecution for the obstruction or assault of emergency workers are, of course, already in place. Section 30(2) of the Fire Services Act 1947 states:
"Any person who wilfully obstructs or interferes with any member of a fire brigade … who is engaged in operations for fire-fighting purposes shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding"
level 3 on the standard scale. In addition, a person may be prosecuted for vandalism under section 52 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, which provides stiffer penalties. There is also the common-law offence of malicious mischief.
The common law on assault applies to everybody and provides protection from attack, including actual or threatened assault. The maximum sentence for assault when prosecuted on indictment is life imprisonment. The common law's flexibility allows it to respond to assaults on, and other unacceptable behaviour towards, members of the emergency services as well as others, whatever the circumstance.
One of the most tragic cases that I prosecuted as an advocate depute was that of two teenagers who placed concrete troughing lids on a railway, causing a train to derail and hit a bridge and killing a driver and a passenger. Those teenagers were prosecuted for murder, convicted by the jury of culpable homicide and sentenced to 15 years, detention.
I mention that case, although it is not directly in point to Paul Martin's amendment 75, to demonstrate that that action resulted in the death not only of a public service worker but of a member of the public. The case illustrates just how seriously my department and the courts view such behaviour and how the common law's flexibility is used in practice.
However, I am alert to the degree of public concern regarding attacks on public service workers. That is why I have arranged for guidance to be issued to all procurators fiscal instructing that reports of incidents that involve attacks on public service workers—including firefighters, ambulance paramedics, doctors, nurses and transport workers—are to be dealt with seriously. The location of the incident and the fact that the workers are providing a service to the public will be aggravating factors that procurators fiscal will take into account when they deal with such cases. Those factors will influence the choice of court where such offenders may be tried so that, if convicted, the courts can sentence them appropriately. I am in no doubt that that guidance will ensure that reports of attacks on public service workers will be investigated thoroughly and treated with appropriate severity in the existing system. The criminal justice system needs to provide a tough response to members of our society who seek to disrupt people who provide valuable services to the public.
On monitoring, I assure Paul Martin on two counts. The Procurator Fiscal Service will monitor the use of the guidance, and I can also advise him that Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate for Scotland recently conducted a survey of assaults on officers. Between 1 January and 30 June 2002, fire brigades recorded a total of 94 attacks. Seventy-nine were in Strathclyde and 12 were in Lothian and Borders. Twenty-nine of the attacks were verbal and 53 involved missile throwing. Twelve attacks were classed as physical, all of which took place in the Strathclyde area. As a result of that work, the inspectorate has decided to monitor attacks on firefighters as part of the annual statistical return. The Executive will work with the inspectorate to ensure that the monitoring is able to track incidents of assault and find out whether the existing law provides a satisfactory response.
I do not believe that there is a proven need for legislation at this stage. However, we must, of course, keep the matter under review. I am in no doubt that if the law is seen to be deficient—either through the monitoring that I have mentioned or by others who observe such matters—in protecting public service workers, a future Executive and Parliament will revisit it. In so doing, the Parliament would have to consider in detail the various laws that are already in place to protect public service workers. It would also have to produce a considered and robust response to an issue that we all agree to be important.
I therefore invite Paul Martin to withdraw amendment 75.
Bill Aitken suggested in his speech that the offence that he proposes in amendment 76 would apply when a person is arrested. In fact, if members read amendment 76, they will see that that is not the case. It would apply when anyone, including an innocent accident victim, comes into contact with a constable.
No member would disagree with the sentiments behind amendment 76. The issue is important, and there are well-documented cases of officers being bitten or spat at by offenders who may be drug users carrying infection. We would all agree that, in such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for an officer to want to know whether they have been exposed to HIV or some other infectious disease. The Scottish Police Federation has already raised the issue with the Executive and the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee.
The Executive's position on the issue is clear: we have indicated that we believe that the Scottish Police Federation has a case. However, the solution is not as simple as Bill Aitken and Phil Gallie suggest. Before we commit to legislating, a number of questions need to be answered. What is the nature of the blood test that could be carried out? Who would carry it out and would there be limits on the types of blood infection for which they could test? What would happen to the information after it had been collected—must it be destroyed or could it be retained?
I agree that those matters must be defined. However, on many occasions, similar questions could have been asked about other amendments, including Executive amendments. The point of detail is not contained in the bill. I suggest that background work must be undertaken and a formula set up, but that that should not stop the minister accepting the principle that is outlined in amendment 76, as he has done on other issues.
I disagree. Particular anomalies could arise and particular mistakes could be made if the amendment was accepted as drafted.
Should protection extend to civilian members of police forces, such as turnkeys or traffic wardens, who come into contact with the public? Should everyone be compelled to submit to a blood test? Should that include suspects who have not been charged? What about innocent parties, such as victims, who may have been injured in an attack or a road accident? One of the fundamental problems with the amendment is that it talks about people who "come into contact" with the police; it is not necessarily about those who are arrested.
I have concerns that amendment 76 is, to be blunt, badly drafted and too wide. We should not make bad law. However, that should not be the end of the matter. I hope that the minister, without binding our successors in any form—I suspect that he will be back on the front bench in the not-too-distant future—will be able to say that progress will be made on the issue, because it will not go away; Labour members will not let it.
Brian Fitzpatrick is right. The concerns that he has articulated about the problems that confront police officers are well documented, and there is huge sympathy for those concerns. I give Brian Fitzpatrick the assurance that something needs to be done—I think that I speak for everyone across all parties on that. Indeed, something should be done.
Let me return to the situation in which we would find ourselves if we were to agree to Bill Aitken's amendment 76. Phil Gallie may describe it as a reasonable amendment, but it is a reasonable amendment that could have grave implications. People can cut themselves, perhaps because of falling on ice, as the First Minister recently did at Bute House, because they have tripped or because they have been mugged. If a police officer were to come to the assistance of someone who had cut themselves in that way, then amendment 76 would apply to them, even if they have no criminal convictions, have not been involved in any crime and have done nothing wrong. Under the terms of the amendment, if such a person did not give a blood sample, which may be recorded on a national database, they could be charged. That cannot be right, yet those terms would apply if amendment 76 were agreed to.
I assure the Parliament that we take the matter seriously, but we want to clarify the questions involved before we move to legislate. We have told the Public Petitions Committee that we intend to consult publicly on the matter, and the consultation paper will be issued in March. I give Brian Fitzpatrick, Bill Aitken, Pauline McNeill, Phil Gallie and anyone else with concerns the assurance that we intend to act. However, we need to ensure that we get it right and, unfortunately, Bill Aitken's amendment would not do that. I hope that he will not move the amendment, on the understanding that the Executive will be taking action on the issue.
I intend to withdraw amendment 75, based on two factors. The first is that there will be a proactive approach to sentencing policy, and I welcome the guidance from the Lord Advocate on that. The second is that that policy will embrace all public sector workers, as discussed by the Lord Advocate and Karen Gillon. I have been receiving representations on that point from senior union officials at Unison and the GMB. They called for an amendment, but said that they would rather there were measures embracing all public sector workers who might be attacked while carrying out their duties.
I thank the Lord Advocate for responding to the issue in a positive manner, and I look forward to measures being implemented. I will, however, revisit the matter in the form of a member's bill if those measures do not prove effective during the period that the Lord Advocate set out.
Paul Martin indicated that he wishes to withdraw amendment 75. Is it agreed that the amendment be withdrawn?
No.
In that case, the question is, that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morrison, Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 38, Against 59, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 75 disagreed to.
Amendment 76 moved—[Bill Aitken].
The question is, that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morrison, Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 76 disagreed to.
Amendment 108 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 108 concerns an important issue of principle, and I welcome the opportunity to raise the matter in Parliament in the context of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
It is in the public interest that crimes are reported. We would all accept that it is a civic duty that, when any of us becomes aware of a suspected crime having been committed, we report it to the police—we do not keep quiet about it, but act in accordance with that civic duty. As far as I understand, however, there is not a general legal duty to do so. There is no legal duty, backed by criminal sanctions, for any of us to report crimes generally.
There are specific circumstances in which it is a crime to fail to report a crime that one sees being committed. For example, I believe that it is a crime to fail to report a road accident in which somebody has been injured. There are specific categories of suspected crime for which the state recognises that it is so much in the public interest to report those crimes that failure to do so is in itself a crime.
I believe that we should act as good Samaritans, and amendment 108 would introduce a duty so to do in respect of public authorities. We know that there are many reasons why individuals will not report crime. For example, there is often widespread intimidation and fear in communities in which drug dealing goes on. That is an extremely serious problem. However, there is also a problem when crime is committed in public authorities and institutions. There are many reasons for such crimes not being reported, because a public body might not wish to launder its dirty linen in public. In crimes of dishonesty, theft, fraud or the like that have been committed in the workplace or in a public body—perhaps involving documents relating to particular employees—there are many reasons for the employer not wishing the circumstances of that crime to become known and to come under the public gaze. An institution may well seek to avoid the bad, or any, publicity that would accrue if such matters were reported to the police.
I understand some of the points that Fergus Ewing makes, but is he seriously proposing that, if a janitor at a local community centre does not report a suspected crime because of fear for his own life or fear for his family, he will become the criminal?
That is not what the amendment does at all.
Yes, it is.
No, it is not. The body, not the individual, would be committing the crime. The duty would be imposed on the public body rather than on the individual.
Will Fergus Ewing give way on that point?
No—I have dealt with it.
I lodged amendment 108 in the light of the case of a constituent who had a particularly difficult experience. It is not appropriate that I rehearse the circumstances of his case now, although I believe that the minister is aware of them. I am aware of the adage that hard cases make bad law, and I subscribe to that. In any case, my constituent wished me to raise the general principle that it is in the public interest that, when a crime is committed in a public institution, that crime should not go unreported. I would very much welcome the minister's response on that general principle.
I am aware that the provisions of amendment 108 are extremely wide, and that it may be appropriate for further detailed consideration to be given to the principle before it is incorporated into the law of Scotland. I would like the minister to indicate whether he accepts that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. From the correspondence that I have had with him, I understand that he accepts that. However, he may not accept that it would be appropriate to create a criminal offence along the lines that I have suggested. If the minister accepts that there is a general problem that we need to address—as I believe he does—would he consider inviting the Scottish Law Commission to consider the matter further, with a view to publishing a consultation paper on it? If the minister will give the undertaking that the matter will be considered on that or any other reasonable basis, I will not press the amendment to a vote.
I move amendment 108.
I remind members to keep their speeches short. If they do not, there will not be time to debate other amendments.
My initial view was that amendment 108 was self-evident. Clearly, it is the duty of all of us—either as individuals or as members of a corporate body—to report crime when it happens. There should be no need for an amendment of this type. I am not privy to the information that Fergus Ewing and the minister have about the specific case that Fergus Ewing mentioned, but I accept that there has been a problem.
If a local authority housing department is aware that drugs are being supplied in an area such as a tenement close, that should be reported. I imagine that local authorities have sometimes felt inhibited from doing that.
Amendment 108 is interesting. It should be taken further, but I am not entirely convinced that by agreeing to the amendment today we would get very far. For that reason, we cannot support the amendment at this stage.
I have serious concerns about amendment 108, especially the wording of subsection (3) of the new section that it would insert in the bill. That subsection contradicts what Mr Ewing said. It states:
"Where an offence under this section is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—
(a) an employee ...
that person, as well as the authority, shall be guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
I have serious concerns about that. If we agreed to amendment 108, we would be telling the most low-paid, vulnerable employees in the public sector that they were responsible for reporting crimes in their community, even if their lives were threatened as a result and they were receiving no support from their management or the local police service. We would be telling them that they would become criminals if they failed to report offences. Unless we back up the amendment with far more effective policing in local communities than is available at present, I am not prepared to put those people in that position. For that reason alone, I will not support the amendment.
As has been indicated, amendment 108 would have the effect of introducing a new criminal offence where it is shown that, without reasonable excuse, a public authority fails to report to the police that an employee or member of the authority may have committed a suspected offence on the premises. As Karen Gillon rightly pointed out, subsection (3) of the amendment could also catch employees.
The scope of the proposed duty and new offence would be wide, although the amendment does not indicate what would be specified as a relevant offence. That decision would be left entirely to ministers. There is already an obligation to report certain offences. In the case of money laundering, the extent of that duty is set out in detail in statute. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, it is an offence for the management of any premises knowingly to permit the production or supply of drugs on those premises. An employer who knew that drugs were being produced or supplied would be obliged to inform the police of that. That is a very specific provision.
Karen Gillon made it clear that under the amendment any employee, as well as the authority, could be found guilty if it were proven that the duty had been breached with their consent or connivance or because of neglect attributable to them.
Fergus Ewing was right to say that we have corresponded on this issue. I am not at all dismissive of the intention behind the amendment, and it would be unacceptable if public authorities failed to report incidents to the police to avoid bad publicity or if they feared that reporting such incidents might have an effect on their funding assessments. However, I am not persuaded that a statutory duty and a new criminal offence to enforce that are either necessary or likely to be effective.
It is not in a public authority's interests to allow crime to fester on its premises. However, it is unlikely that a prosecution would result from failure to report a suspected crime if the original crime were not reported. Indeed, it would be very difficult for the Crown to prove that someone had not reported a crime or suspected crime, as the procurator fiscal would have to prove that there were circumstances giving rise to suspicion and that the employer knew of those circumstances. An employee who is currently unwilling to report the original incidents to the police would hardly be prepared to report the breach of a statutory duty, as that would involve reporting the employer or responsible officer, rather than the individual suspected of the criminal behaviour.
It is important to make it clear that, regardless of the attitude of public agencies, there is nothing to prevent an employee or other person from making a complaint about a suspected criminal offence to a professional body, the police or the procurator fiscal. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides protection for individuals who make certain disclosures of information in the public interest. That includes the disclosure of information that, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show inter alia that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed.
I understand fully what lies behind amendment 108, but I fear that it could lead to complications greater than those that it is intended to resolve. For example, an employee may be the subject of malicious accusations. If the public authority got wind of those accusations, it might feel that it was safest to report them, to ensure that at a later stage it would not be found culpable of failing to do so. That could put the employee concerned under considerable pressure. In the absence of a statutory duty to report an accusation, the employer can conduct an internal investigation, offer appropriate support to staff and resolve matters internally.
The onus to report a crime normally rests with the victim, rather than the victim's employer. I hope that an employer would not act unreasonably in refusing to report a matter to the police. That is an important point, but I do not believe that the case has been made for the kind of legislation that Fergus Ewing proposes.
I acknowledge that much that the minister says is correct in a general sense. I believe that there is still a serious problem that has not been addressed, but it would not be appropriate to press the matter to a vote without giving it further consideration.
Amendment 108, by agreement, withdrawn.
After section 61A
Amendment 81 is in a group on its own.
I will be brief, because amendment 81 is a probing amendment. The amendment highlights the fact that it is not entirely clear from existing legislation whether there is a requirement for further legislation to determine where courts can sit if they sit outwith their usual location. I understand that when the High Court sat at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands that was dealt with by the application of a regulation. However, that needs to be clarified. Amendment 81 is intended to deal with the difficulties that arise in prisons from time to time, which in recent years have increased in number because of a combination of European convention on human rights restrictions and Executive ineptitude.
Under the amendment, a court could be convened within a prison and offenders could be dealt with on a summary basis, allowing additional and consecutive sentences. That would speed up the system considerably. We suggest that that approach be adopted, but at the moment it is unclear whether the procedures are in place to allow it. I will listen to the minister with interest.
I move amendment 81.
Amendment 81 is not necessary or appropriate. The position regarding sheriff court district boundaries and locations is that, as a matter of practice, proposals are the subject of consultation with a range of interests. Those include the senior judiciary, the Scottish Court Service, which is an agency of the Scottish ministers with no independent legal personality, the Crown Office and others. In the determination of boundaries and locations, key considerations are convenience to those who use the courts, the efficiency and effectiveness of the court system and alignment with local authority boundaries, in so far as that is practicable. The legislation is currently applied on that basis.
Existing legislation allows a court to be held at any place, including a prison, should such a contingency be necessary, appropriate and in the interests of justice. A court would not normally be held in a prison, for legal and practical reasons: fairness to the accused, especially under human rights legislation; different functions and facilities of courts and prisons; and the inconvenience and uncertainty that would be given to the witnesses and other members of the public involved. Let us bear in mind the fact that our court proceedings are public events, except in exceptional circumstances.
Section 63A, which allows judicial proceedings to be held over live television links from prison in certain circumstances, is intended to reduce the movement of prisoners between the prisons and the courts. There is even a judicial override, under which the judge or sheriff can insist on the physical appearance of the accused if he is of the view that that is necessary in the interests of justice.
I hope that that is sufficiently reassuring to Bill Aitken, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
I am obliged for that explanation, which makes the amendment unnecessary.
Amendment 81, by agreement, withdrawn.
After section 64
Amendment 8 is in a group on its own.
At stage 2, the Executive agreed to withdraw amendment 16, which was the same as this amendment, to allow the committee to consider the matter further. We provided some additional information that we hope assisted the committee in that respect.
The Executive wanted to look at ways of improving the efficiency of the criminal justice system by more effective use of electronic communication. In particular, we wanted to examine how the technology could be used with regard to documents such as indictments, complaints and warrants.
We concluded that there was provision for the electronic transmission and storage of most of those documents if and when that was needed, under the Electronic Communications Act 2000. However, the act does not allow provision to be made for the electronic transmission and storage of warrants obtained at common law. Amendment 8 is therefore required so that ministers can make an order to regulate the electronic transmission and storage of such warrants.
The committee raised several points, including the security of the system. Many people are naturally cautious about sending items electronically, and it is worth observing in this context that the encryption security of electronic systems that require it is not new—it has developed over 25 years into a sophisticated science. Many different layers of security are now available and can be designed specifically for the situation that they need to serve. Nevertheless, the Executive would not make that move unless we were satisfied about those technical matters. Therefore, if the Parliament were to give its approval today, we would not make any order permitted by the amendment until we were entirely content that all the appropriate technical provisions were in place and fully tested. It would not be in the interests of justice to do anything that would compromise the integrity of search warrant procedures, and ministers would not contemplate anything of that kind.
The committee also asked how the proposed new arrangements would interface with current search warrant procedures and what impact they would have. In fact, the general principles of obtaining a search warrant would remain entirely unchanged. The police would still have to approach the procurator fiscal in the first instance to explain why they thought that a search warrant was necessary. The procurator fiscal would then consider the matter and, if he or she was satisfied that there was sufficient legal basis for applying for a warrant and that it was in the public interest to do so, prepare the necessary documentation. The warrant would then be placed in front of a sheriff to consider, and he or she would in turn have to be satisfied that there was good reason to grant it.
That is what happens at the moment, and all those levels of scrutiny would remain unchanged. What would change, however, is that the search warrant would not have to be moved long distances around Scotland between police, duty fiscals and sheriffs, especially for out-of-hours requests. Furthermore, additional flexibility will be provided in section 49, which will permit sheriffs, if need be, to deal with warrants while they are not in their sheriffdom, as they must be at the moment. That will apply equally to traditional warrants and their proposed electronic counterparts, and will be particularly helpful in dealing with out-of-hours requests.
In addition to contributing to the efficiency of the system as a whole, I believe that amendment 8 will make an important contribution to the fight against crime. In many instances, it will reduce the time that is needed to process search warrants in the chain between police, fiscal and sheriff, where time can be a critical factor.
I move amendment 8.
I have a healthy suspicion of technology, and I am not totally reassured by what the minister has said. However, if things are going to go pear shaped, we will know fairly early and remedial action can be taken. On that basis, I am happy for amendment 8 to proceed.
The minister is being too modest. The material that was provided to the committee was comprehensive, complete and of excellent quality, and I am happy to support amendment 8.
I would like to make just one small point. It is all very well getting the technology secure, but we must also operate it securely. I hope that the minister will be able to indicate that guidance and training will be given to the people who will use the electronic system, to ensure that the human element does not become the insecure part that damages that useful initiative.
I thank the Executive for withdrawing the initial amendment and allowing us to examine the matter in detail.
I am happy to support amendment 8. As the minister said, there is another important provision in section 49, which allows sheriffs to sign warrants in the whole of Scotland and not just in their own jurisdiction. We had the bizarre situation whereby sheriffs were travelling out of hours to the borders of their jurisdiction to meet police officers in cars to sign warrants. The bill will prevent that from happening in the future.
The committee also queried whether an oath had to be taken, but I think that that is the position only for common-law warrants. I am happy that the minister has given us assurances on that. The procedure is new, so those assurances are important, because there a lot of controversy has surrounded the signature of warrants. The matter should be kept under review in the future.
I am happy to give Stewart Stevenson the assurance that we will give careful consideration to the need to ensure that those who will operate the system are properly trained and given adequate guidance.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 109 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 69—Orders
Amendment 77 not moved.
Section 70—Short title and commencement
Amendment 16 is in a group on its own.
Section 70 deals with the commencement provisions for all topics that the bill covers. Amendment 16 delivers on the commitment that we gave at stage 2 to ensure that the wildlife crime provisions will come into effect immediately upon royal assent. It also enables the early commencement of some of the general sections in the bill. Early commencement of the wildlife crime provisions that we introduced at stage 2 will ensure that the new measures are in operation for the season that runs from March to early June, when, regrettably, some of the worst wildlife offences are committed.
Amendment 16 also provides for the early commencement of sections 65 and 68, which deal with transitional provisions, order-making arrangements and interpretation, so that those technical provisions do not need to be commenced separately when we commence the substantive provisions in the bill.
I move amendment 16.
The Conservatives strongly support amendment 16. We are aware that the scope and extent of wildlife offences have increased over the years. I introduced a bill to establish Scottish Natural Heritage to protect wildlife in Scotland's countryside, but that organisation on its own is insufficient, and there must be sufficient back-up powers. As RSPB Scotland has very correctly pointed out, there should be the option of custodial sentences. Sheriff Colin Mackay said on 10 March 2000, in relation to those who were committing terrible crimes:
"Unless prison is an option I do not think you will be much discouraged".
Reports of wildlife poisoning have increased. In 2002, there were 43 such reports. There have been many thefts, and egg collectors continue to steal. We have an inescapable duty to protect the environment and wildlife, and the RSPB's aim of having a healthy environment that is rich in birds and wildlife is important not only for tourism and jobs, but for the very quality of life of Scotland itself. As long as wildlife thrives, we can be dead certain that that is a key indicator that the environment is in good condition.
Amendment 16 is welcome, as is section 70. My constituency has the longest border with England of any constituency along the south of Scotland. We felt particularly vulnerable to problems of cross-border traffic in wildlife crime. I know that the local police are particularly keen on amendment 16 and I welcome it. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, an attack on wildlife is an attack not only on the flora and fauna per se but on Scotland's heritage.
I am grateful for the welcome that amendment 16 has been given. Wildlife crime is big business and it is important that we have the measures that the bill will introduce to allow us to be more effective in combating such crime. Having introduced a private member's bill to the House of Commons to deal with the issue and having being beaten by the general election, I find it satisfying to see the measures in legislation and to have the commencement provisions to make them effective for this season.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Schedule 1
Order for lifelong restriction: modification of enactments
Amendment 17 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Schedule 2A
Wildlife offences
Amendment 42 is in a group on its own.
It gives me great pleasure to move amendment 42, which is aimed at strengthening the hand of those who seek to enforce wildlife law. I greatly appreciate the support of RSPB Scotland, the police and the Scottish Executive in this regard. It is a nice change for me to have the backing of Jim Wallace and Allan Wilson—better late than never.
Amendment 42 is an attempt to equalise the time bar for all offences in wildlife crime. At present, under section 20 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the time bar is six months for some offences and two years for other offences. The importance of making the time bar for all offences two years is simply that most of the crimes will be committed in remote areas where it is difficult to detect them quickly. Unlike human victims, the victims of wildlife crimes are hardly likely to be able to report the crime. Therefore, action is based exclusively on the evidence that can be found and detected before the cases can proceed.
Members will be aware of some of the examples that have been given, but it is worth repeating them. A case of a decaying corpse, for example, is difficult to give a time line. If the bird was killed by poison, the state of decay is likely to show that the offence occurred more than six months ago, which means that the case would fall victim to the time bar. Taxidermists are required to report wildlife transactions annually, which means that if there are any suspicious circumstances, six months will pass before they can be reported and investigated, so prosecutions will be difficult to bring.
The purpose of amendment 42 is to equalise the time bar to two years, to strengthen the hand of those who want to combat wildlife crime. I appreciate the Executive's support in this regard. I hope that members will agree to the amendment unanimously and send out the clear message that when it comes to wildlife crime, the Scottish Parliament wants to take action.
I move amendment 42.
Amendment 42 is very much in line with Executive policy on wildlife crime. Indeed, it had been our intention that a provision achieving the same effect would form part of the future nature conservation bill, which is part of a wider package of reforms to the existing Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We had to make a finely balanced judgment at stage 2 on whether we would lodge an amendment in this regard in conjunction with other amendments that were discussed at that stage. We erred on the side of caution, because we did not want to overburden the Justice 2 Committee.
It is good to see that Duncan Hamilton has kept awake and that he has picked up on our initiatives. Amendment 42 re-emphasises the extent to which consensus exists in the Parliament on the need to protect Scotland's natural heritage and crack down on the activities of the rogue estates to which Duncan Hamilton referred. I am sure that amendment 42 will be agreed to unanimously.
I will allow Bruce Crawford to make the tiniest of comments.
I am grateful for the Executive's moving in the way that it has done on amendment 42. I wonder whether a comment could be made at some stage about the future nature conservation bill with regard to the poisoning of wildlife and how prosecuting that could be strengthened, as that might have been included in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
I do not think that there is a mechanism for that. I ask Mr Hamilton to wind up, although I take it that he does not have a lot to say.
We now have total agreement around the chamber. It is a good day for the Parliament.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
Schedule 3
Minor and consequential amendments
There is very little time left. Amendment 48 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 48 is a minor drafting amendment. The correct term is "substituted" rather than "inserted".
I move amendment 48.
Amendment 48 agreed to.
Long Title
Amendments 110, 43, 9 and 2 not moved.
That ends consideration of amendments. We are a minute ahead of time.
Following are the corrected figures for the votes on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill:
Amendment 71: For 66, Against 28, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 72: For 67, Against 28, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 101: For 27, Against 68, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 102: For 26, Against 67, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 103: For 29, Against 69, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 104: For 37, Against 61, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 74: For 30, Against 70, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 75: For 39, Against 59, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 76: For 36, Against 61, Abstentions 0.