Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Plenary, 22 Jan 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, January 22, 2009


Contents


Question Time


SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE


Rural Affairs and the Environment


Landfill Waste Reduction

To ask the Scottish Executive what assistance it is giving to local authorities to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill sites. (S3O-5615)

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead):

The Scottish Government has provided local authorities with record levels of funding over the period 2008-10. In line with the concordat, the majority of the funding, including the former strategic waste fund, is now provided by means of a block grant.

In December 2008, the Scottish Government announced a further £17.9 million of zero waste fund money, as part of a three-year funding programme, for local authorities to invest in infrastructure to divert more waste from landfill.

Margaret Smith:

Will the minister join me in congratulating the City of Edinburgh Council on raising its recycling rate above 30 per cent this year? The council is ambitious in this regard and wants to improve on its performance.

I seek the minister's support in considering how we can help councils to meet their targets. Will he commit to examining the current system, under which waste from schools and community and charitable organisations is categorised as chargeable trade waste? That seems to act as a disincentive to schools and other organisations that are enthusiastic about participating in increasing recycling as much as possible.

Richard Lochhead:

I would not wish any obstacles to be placed in the way of enthusiasm for recycling among schools and other public organisations. I will be happy to investigate that concern further and to seek clarification on it. If we have to take action, we will consider that. I thank Margaret Smith for bringing the matter to my attention.

I am happy to congratulate the City of Edinburgh Council for its progress in its recycling statistics, and I pay tribute to those involved in all the hard work that was, no doubt, behind that progress. I hope that the council continues it in the years ahead.

Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency's "Waste Data Digest 8" states that, although the 30 per cent national target for recycling and composting was, by the end of last year, "likely to be achieved", achieving further targets "will be challenging." Does the cabinet secretary believe that the Scottish Government's national target of

"70% by the end of 2025"

can be achieved without setting targets for individual local authorities?

Richard Lochhead:

Yes—I believe that the targets can be achieved. There is huge enthusiasm throughout Scotland to achieve such ambitious targets for the sake of the environment. Elaine Murray suggests that they are "challenging" targets: they certainly are, but I believe that Scotland is ready to meet them. As I said in my previous answer to Margaret Smith, we are making resources available. There are exciting and ambitious plans to increase rates of recycling in many local authority areas—we have already heard about the action that the City of Edinburgh Council has been taking.

Question 2 is withdrawn.


Forestry

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with the staff of Forestry Commission Scotland and their trade unions over the future of Scotland's forests. (S3O-5561)

The Minister for Environment (Michael Russell):

I met representatives of Forestry Commission trade unions on 4 November 2008, when we published a consultation paper on the forestry provisions in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. I have met union members since then at a number of consultation events. To help all staff consider the possible implications of those provisions, senior officials in Forestry Commission Scotland have organised staff meetings in Edinburgh, Stirling, Inverness, Perth, Aviemore, Oban, Dumfries and Stranraer. I have also met staff at other meetings.

Bill Butler:

The minister will be aware that his Government's proposals for the future of Scotland's forests have caused deep unease in Parliament and, more important, they have caused great anxiety among Forestry Commission staff. I have just come from a meeting with staff who are in the trade unions, at which I heard their concerns at first hand. Is the minister aware that the Forestry Commission trade unions have offered an alternative to meeting the Scottish Government's climate change commitments that does not require the handing over of more than 25 per cent of Scotland's national forest estate to the private sector in a 75-year lease—which is, in effect, back-door privatisation? Will he give a commitment today to respond positively to the unions' proposals, in order to ensure that the jobs remain firmly in the public sector?

Michael Russell:

No—I will not give that commitment, and I will tell Bill Butler why. I have not seen the proposals, and it would be very foolish of me to commit to proposals that I have not seen. However, I have said repeatedly to everybody involved in the consultation—particularly to those who are willing to listen and debate, which includes a number of people in the forestry sector but very few from the Labour or Liberal seats in Parliament—that I am entirely open to other ideas. Indeed, I have said repeatedly that a monopoly of wisdom on the issue does not lie in any one place and that the proposals can be improved.

I stress again that there is no threat to jobs and that there is a triple jobs guarantee, which I gave at the meeting on 4 November 2008 and have given at every discussion since. I have also made it as clear as I can that the prospect of spending up to £200 million on forestry-related activity in Scotland will produce more jobs, not fewer. Perhaps Mr Butler would like to reflect on the salient fact that more than 1,000 Forestry Commission jobs were lost in the past 10 years, which is of course when Mr Butler's party and the Liberal Democrats—who have been active in the campaign but appear nowhere today—were the parties in power. They cost Scotland 1,000 Forestry Commission jobs. I want to increase the number of forestry jobs in rural Scotland.

Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con):

The minister may be aware that I am broadly supportive of his proposals to lease part of the forestry land in order to raise resources, but can he tell me what other efforts have been made to explore alternative funding streams that may release the same resources? In particular, is there an option to look at carbon trading mechanisms, which could bring resources into Scottish forestry to be used to expand the planting rate?

Michael Russell:

There are a number of possible options. However, one of the great difficulties that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have is that—bizarrely, in the world of democracy—the Government cannot borrow. It is also a Government that does not have full tax powers at its command. The classic means by which we could increase the amount of planting in Scotland, which would include tax incentives and mechanisms to support the price of timber—which might include borrowing to undertake activity such as we are talking about, given that it is an early investment in tackling climate change—are not available to this Government. We must therefore be inventive about how we increase the planting rate. We must raise the rate—which is at about 4,000 hectares a year—to 10,000 hectares a year, and we should try to take it higher than that. I am trying to find a way to do that and am open to any and all suggestions.

If the suggestion of carbon trading were to be brought forward during the consultation period, I would look at it seriously. However, I must stress to members across the chamber that doing nothing is not an option, and that the worst option of all is to create anxiety through the scaremongering that we have seen, rather than addressing the issue honestly. There are members in the chamber whose behaviour has been disgraceful.

Question 4 was not lodged.


Climate Challenge Fund

To ask the Scottish Executive how many applications there have been to the climate challenge fund and how many have been successful. (S3O-5562)

The climate challenge fund has received 225 formal expressions of interest. So far, 82 of those have been developed into full applications and considered by the independent grants panel, and 56 have been successful in receiving funding.

Malcolm Chisholm:

Will the minister join me in congratulating the active Leith project and the north Edinburgh community climate change initiative on their success in the latest round of the fund? Does he agree that community grass-roots action, as demonstrated by both those initiatives, is vital in the battle against climate change? Will he do everything he can to promote the fund and to ensure that there are no underspends, so that carbon savings can be achieved in communities across Scotland?

Richard Lochhead:

I answer yes to all Malcolm Chisholm's questions. I very much welcome his warm response to the impact that the climate challenge fund, which has attracted cross-party support, is having and I join him in congratulating the active Leith project which is, as he said, being funded by the challenge fund. I agree that grass-roots action to tackle climate change and global warming is an important way forward, which is one of the reasons why the fund is proving to be successful. We will make every effort to make it even more successful and to ensure that the resources end up in the hands of grass-roots organisations the length and breadth of Scotland.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Lothians) (SNP):

I add my congratulations to the two schemes that have been mentioned and I draw to the minister's attention another scheme that was successful in the last funding round, which is the piper scheme in west Edinburgh. There is, however, a difficulty in that we need to know the actual carbon reduction that is achieved through each successful project. What has been done to measure the significant impact that the schemes can have not just on invigorating our local communities, but on the climate change agenda as a whole?

Richard Lochhead:

There is guidance in place for projects. One of the criteria that are taken into account is the need to ensure that projects will reduce the carbon footprints of their communities. The Government and the whole country are paying a lot of attention to the question of how we can best measure reductions in carbon footprints in the years ahead.

The funding scheme is successful, and the independent grants panel is persuaded that the projects that are coming forward are ambitious and will reduce the carbon footprints of many of our communities.

Patrick Harvie:

I welcome the comments of the minister and other members, as they demonstrate once again that so many of the Scottish National Party's best ideas come through negotiation with the Scottish Green Party.

How does the minister intend to build on the climate challenge fund so that communities across Scotland—including those that do not yet enjoy a high level of community activism and proactive community efforts—can not only produce carbon savings but can benefit from the cost reductions that arise from initiatives such as the free insulation programmes that have been funded by the climate challenge fund? We need to roll those initiatives out across Scotland.

Richard Lochhead:

We welcome the support of the Greens for this initiative. A lot of effort is being made across the country to make communities aware of the kind of funding streams that are available to reduce Scotland's carbon footprint. Of course, the climate challenge fund is aimed at grass-roots activity, as we have just been discussing.

At the beginning of the week, in my role as cabinet secretary, I attended a rural development funding seminar in Elgin along with around 100 or 150 people from rural communities. I can tell Mr Harvie that the climate challenge fund was also on their agendas. A number of similar events are taking place across Scotland, many of which are led by local authorities. Of course, the support of local authorities is necessary if we are to get the message out about exactly what is available. I commend Moray Council and every other council that is engaged in similar work.

Question 6 is not lodged.


LEADER Programme (Aberdeenshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to ensure that the rural Aberdeenshire LEADER programme is properly resourced. (S3O-5608)

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead):

I have approved the award of £3.36 million to the rural Aberdeenshire local action group from the LEADER fund. The group bid for £3.46 million. The total of the bids that was received was far in excess of the funding that was available, but the Aberdeenshire bid was commendably strong.

Alison McInnes:

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the concerns that Aberdeenshire Council has expressed on this matter.

Originally, Scottish Enterprise allocated £1 million for Aberdeenshire for the duration of the programme. However, people are concerned about the fact that the level of funding from the rural action group is now only £1 million for the whole of Scotland. Will the cabinet secretary comment on that?

As Alison McInnes said, the Scottish Enterprise matched funding is about that amount. Of course, if good projects are forthcoming from our rural local authorities, they can bid for cash to be made available to them from Scottish Enterprise.


Eco-schools

To ask the Scottish Executive what action its rural directorate is taking to promote environmental awareness through further development of the eco-schools programme. (S3O-5581)

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (Richard Lochhead):

As Ken Macintosh will know, the eco-schools programme in Scotland is one of the most successful in the world, and the Scottish Government continues to develop it. Since May 2007, 353 schools have been awarded green flags, which brings the total number of Scottish schools with green flag status to 744. On current trends, we expect to see Scotland's 1000th green flag school by 2010.

We are continuing to broaden the reach of the programme by funding a secondary schools development officer from the education and rural budgets.

Ken Macintosh:

Does the minister agree that we must build on the success of this phenomenally successful programme? Would he consider improving the Scottish Government's contribution by, for example, collecting information on energy efficiency standards in our schools, by requiring schools to source their electricity from renewable sources and by encouraging greater use of microgeneration in our schools?

Michael Russell:

Of course I would encourage schools to make greater use of microgeneration. At the risk of bringing the issue too close to home, I know that my wife's school is using a solar panel and is interested in taking the idea even further. However, there are a range of routes by which such material can come to schools. For example, there have been some interesting innovations by power companies that are assisting schools.

I agree that the eco-schools programme has to be driven forward by enthusiastic schools. I do not think it needs more and more layers of bureaucracy—I want the schools themselves to set their priorities. However, I would be very surprised if there were more than a few eco-schools that are not keen on new developments in microgeneration, so I would encourage that to happen. I am quite sure that that will be part of the programme as it evolves. Ken Macintosh will know that the programme is constantly developing, and that new topics come in every year.

Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con):

I recently visited the Haddo forest school, which is run by the Woodland Trust and Aberdeenshire Council. I was extremely impressed by the many life skills that the pupils are learning in ways that really stimulate their enthusiasm. Does the minister agree that such programmes are equally valuable in developing environmental awareness in our young people and is he willing to promote such schemes in tandem with the eco-schools initiative?

Michael Russell:

I entirely agree that it is not an either/or situation—there are several good initiatives. The eco-schools initiative is specifically designed to involve not only the school, but the whole community. The forest schools movement, which is also successful, has been well supported by the Forestry Commission and other organisations and is involved in transferring a unique range of skills to young people and teachers. I want to encourage many different initiatives and to make it clear that involvement in environmental education, gaining knowledge of the environment and having a much more active relationship with the environment are no longer an option in education, but are part of the main stream.


Agricultural Pay and Conditions

To ask the Scottish Executive when it plans to publish responses to the recent consultation on agricultural pay and conditions. (S3O-5592)

Consultation responses on the review of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board were published on Tuesday 20 January 2009.

Dr Simpson:

That is the most rapid response to a question that I have heard from a Government. Does the minister agree that any response by the Government should be based not on the scale of the responses, but on the merits of the case, particularly recognising the low density and geographically disparate distribution of workers in the industry?

Does the Government agree that the International Labour Organization convention 99, and article 2 of the Council of Europe's social charter, which calls for

"additional .. holidays or reduced … hours for workers engaged in dangerous or unhealthy occupations",

apply to that group of workers? If so, does the Government accept that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board is the most effective mechanism for regulating and setting agriculture workers' terms and conditions?

Richard Lochhead:

We received 44 responses to the consultation and opinion was divided among them, so it was not easy to get a clear message from the exercise. Many of the issues that Dr Simpson raises were included in the responses that we received, and we treat those points seriously. We are reviewing the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board because it dates back to 1949. Members will agree that, in this day and age, it makes sense to review a body that was set up so long ago. Since then, we have had the advent of the minimum wage and the working time directive. I assure the member that we will be conscious of the impact on workers' conditions as we reach a decision, but we must take into account a range of factors and we will do so.

John Scott (Ayr) (Con):

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, with the establishment of a national minimum wage, it is simply no longer tenable for the agriculture industry alone to be burdened with the decrees of a body such as the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, which is now actively preventing young men and women from taking up or being given jobs on the land? Will he therefore consider abolishing that quango, which is in truth unnecessary and unfit for purpose?

Richard Lochhead:

Although we have not reached a decision, we are taking into account the fact that the agriculture sector is the only sector that has a body for wages regulation. We are also considering its impact on attracting young people into the industry. Several farmers and others in the agriculture sector have made that point to us. Young people have expressed the view that the lack of wage bands means that it is not easy for them to get a first job on a farm. We have not reached a decision, but we are taking into account all those factors. I am sure that members will agree that, given the division of opinion, we should ensure that we take the right decision.

Question 10 is not lodged. We will move to themed questions on justice and law officers.

John Scott:

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You will be aware that three questions were not lodged in the rural affairs and environment themed question time and that one was withdrawn, which means that only six questions have been asked on the subject. Many members—myself included—would have been happy to ask questions, but have been denied that by other members who have, apparently, not taken the trouble to lodge questions. Will you reflect on that problem and let me know whether something can be done about it?

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

We are aware of the problem, but we are not necessarily in control of what members do. I apologise for not lodging my question because I found out that I was going to be in the chair and would therefore be unable to call myself. I point out, however, that the entire question time was taken up with questions to the relevant ministers; therefore we have not lost out in that sense.


Justice and Law Officers


Direct Measures

To ask the Scottish Executive how many people charged with assault to injury have received a direct measure since 1 April 2008. (S3O-5603)

The Solicitor General for Scotland (Frank Mulholland):

Direct measures introduced by summary justice reform were issued by procurators fiscal for 521 charges of assault to injury between April and September 2008. That amounted to 2 per cent of all such direct measures issued during that time and only 9 per cent of all charges of assault to injury received by procurators fiscal during that time.

Gavin Brown:

From quick arithmetic, it appears that about four people a day are given a direct measure for assault to injury, which shows a disconnect between the deeds and words of the Government. We heard just today from the First Minister that people who commit violence should get long sentences. Assault to injury is clearly a crime of violence, so what action is the Government taking to ensure that violent criminals do not receive direct measures?

The Solicitor General for Scotland:

The guidance says that direct measures should not be issued for serious assault. In respect of minor assault, it is perfectly acceptable for procurators fiscal, using their judgment and the factors set out in the prosecution code, to issue direct measures.

I dealt with an allegation of assault this morning in which a person had allegedly been pushed off a wall with no injury or minor injury resulting. I suggest that no one would think that that was worthy of a criminal prosecution and potential criminal conviction before a court. Another example is of two students having a punch-up in a university union resulting in a bloody nose on a Friday night. Would anyone suggest that it would be appropriate to prosecute the students in those circumstances?

Members:

Yes.

The Solicitor General for Scotland:

I am afraid that I disagree. There is discretion for procurators fiscal to exercise judgment. The factors that they take into account are well known and are set out in the prosecution code. Therefore, I must disagree with any proposition that someone who commits such assaults requires a criminal prosecution.

Does the Solicitor General believe that the introduction of summary justice reform will free up police to spend more time on the beat making our streets safer?

The Solicitor General for Scotland:

Yes. The available statistics seem to demonstrate that. For example, in the three months to September 2008, 23 per cent more cases were dealt with by a plea at the outset of the case as a result of summary justice reform. That drills down into 5,000 witness citations spared, 60 per cent of which would be for police officers. Think about the administration that would be involved in that—a significant number of police officers are now not required to prepare and submit witness statements to procurators fiscal, who are not required to prepare subsequent cases for intermediate diet or trial. There has been a significant saving as a result of summary justice reform and a benefit to the public of having more efficient and effective summary justice.


Serious Fraud Investigations

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps have been taken to ensure that the investigation of serious fraud in Scotland can be carried out effectively. (S3O-5596)

The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing):

The national casework division at the Crown Office and the police work in partnership to investigate and prosecute high-value complex fraud. That is working. For example, a recent case resulted in a bank manager pleading guilty to a £21.3 million fraud from his bank. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland is making good progress in working up detailed proposals to address the recommendations in Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary report on serious fraud. Scottish Government officials are working closely with ACPOS and we look forward to receiving its proposals shortly.

David McLetchie:

As the minister is aware, the Serious Fraud Office in England has launched an investigation into frauds that have allegedly been committed by Bernard Madoff. Those frauds might have an impact on businesses and individuals in this country, including the Royal Bank of Scotland, which—it is said—might have lost up to £400 million.

The minister is also aware that the Serious Fraud Office has no jurisdiction in Scotland and would have to be invited to extend its inquiries into Bernard Madoff to this country. Has such an invitation been extended? If it has, is that not an indictment of the Government's failure to progress timeously the recommendations of the Tomkins report? If no such invitation has been extended, why is that the case when so much money is at stake?

Fergus Ewing:

Whether there should be an investigation in Scotland into the affairs of Bernard Madoff is entirely a matter for the police and the Crown Office, not—as Mr McLetchie is well aware—for Scottish ministers. However, if the Royal Bank of Scotland or any other company were to make a complaint to the police that they had been the subject of fraud by Mr Madoff, it would be investigated by the police.

Mr McLetchie asserts once again that there has been some element of delay by the Scottish Government in dealing with the recommendations that the Tomkins report contains. That is not so. There has been no delay—the assertions by the Conservatives are entirely wrong and misplaced—and I am grateful for the opportunity to point that out once again to Mr McLetchie.

Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab):

It is clear that the development of the new crime campus at Gartcosh, which will bring together the key agencies that are involved in tackling crime, could be of huge benefit in tackling cases of major criminal fraud. Can the minister assure us that there will be no further delays in its construction and give us a clear timetable for when it will open?

Fergus Ewing:

The Government supports the establishment of the campus at Gartcosh, which will enable us to bring together under one roof people who are all working towards the same objective—not least those in the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. To be fair, there is unanimity on the issue—at least in relation to aims—across all parties. My understanding is that the work towards establishing Gartcosh is in train, and no notice of any expected delay has come to my attention. If Mr Baker wishes to write to me, I would be happy to examine in more detail the specific issue that he has raised today.


Residency and Contact Orders

To ask the Scottish Executive how many reported breaches of residency and contact orders there have been in each year since 2006. (S3O-5598)

The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing):

Neither the current nor the previous Administration has considered it appropriate to collect those data. However, we believe that breaches of residency and contact orders are a factor in only a minority of cases. We appreciate that such situations can be frustrating and upsetting for those who are affected. Wherever possible, conflicts should be resolved in a consensual and collaborative fashion, since the paramount consideration in such cases must always be the welfare of the child.

Margaret Mitchell:

I consider it to be regrettable that hard evidence is not held on such an important subject, and I hope that the minister will consider that issue in the future. In the meantime, is he aware of the excellent work that is done by Family Mediation South Lanarkshire, which takes referrals from throughout Lanarkshire, and which—through the use of contact centres, mediation and parenting education programmes—supports families in crisis to regulate and normalise contact for the sake of children?

Given that that work has a proven record—not just in reducing hostility and tension and encouraging better contact, but in having a marked impact on the behaviour, attitude and general outlook of the children who are involved—does the Scottish Government recognise the merit of the service in resolving disputes and discouraging breaches of residency and contact orders without redress to the courts?

Fergus Ewing:

I accept entirely the excellent role that is played by family mediation services. I know that the member, along with other members, takes a particular interest in the matter.

Before I was elected, as a solicitor I dealt with matters that related to custody and access—now known as residency and contact. My impression was that the worst place to resolve such issues was on the floor of a sheriff court at a proof. The best place was at mediation, and the best approach was through conciliation and collaboration. I think that that broad approach is supported by all parties in the Parliament, and I am grateful to Margaret Mitchell for giving me an opportunity to clarify that again.

I ask the cabinet secretary how the Government is working with family mediation groups to ensure that breaches of residency and contact orders are kept to a minimum.

Fergus Ewing:

I am grateful to Christina McKelvie for the promotion, although I am not sure that it is entirely accurate.

We are doing a number of things. We are supporting the work of family mediation and the development of collaborative law for use in family dispute resolution, where attempts are made to sort matters out without the involvement of solicitors. We are wholly devoted to continuing that good work throughout Scotland.

I am grateful to the member for raising the issue. The Scottish Government is taking the entirely correct approach to the matter. As members know, difficult issues arise—particularly where there is domestic abuse or when the parties live far apart—in the practical arrangements for ensuring that the children continue to see both parents wherever possible.

Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab):

Margaret Mitchell raises a valid point about breaches. One way in which to tackle contact issues is to ensure that there is a local contact centre. The previous Labour-led Scottish Executive agreed a transitional funding arrangement for contact centres while funding was switched from national to local government. What discussions have taken place with local authorities to ensure that funding for contact centres is properly maintained?

Fergus Ewing:

There are 37 contact centres in Scotland, 30 of which are managed by Relationships Scotland. I am aware of the good work that is done at contact centres, which employ the methods of mediation and collaboration to try to sort matters out with both parents by agreement. We value the work that they do.

On the funding issue, as the member knows, we are removing ring fencing from local government budgets to enable councils to allocate resources according to local priorities. We believe that that new, productive relationship with local government will deliver better value and a better deal for Scotland's children, young people and families.


Proceeds of Crime (Reinvestment)

To ask the Scottish Government how the seized proceeds of crime are reinvested in local communities. (S3O-5630)

The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing):

The proceeds of crime are reinvested in local communities through the cashback for communities programme. So far, we have committed to invest £11 million in a range of positive activities for young people throughout Scotland in sport, arts and community projects.

Aileen Campbell:

The minister is aware that a recent beneficiary of cashback for communities funding was the Biggar Youth Project in the South of Scotland. The money is being used to provide healthy meals and activities for school students at lunch times. Does the minister agree not only that that initiative has an immediate benefit for the kids involved, but that it will help them to grow up healthier, fitter and less likely to take part in antisocial behaviour themselves?

Fergus Ewing:

Yes. The member highlights one of many examples of the good work that is being done through the cashback scheme. I know the Biggar area to some extent, although not as well as the member, and I praise the work of the Biggar Youth Project, which has successfully provided activities for young people for 13 years.

There is broad support for the policy, which takes moneys that are confiscated from drug dealers and gangsters and uses them to the benefit of youngsters—the money is used to provide more choices and chances for children throughout Scotland. Again, I believe that all parties in the Parliament support the policy.

Is there a geographical correlation between the areas in which money is seized and the areas in which it is then utilised? If not, does the minister believe that there should be such a correlation?

Fergus Ewing:

No, and no. If, for example, a £30 million drugs haul was made off the coast of Mallaig in my constituency, it would be overegging the cake, even for me or the member, to argue that every single penny of that money should be invested in Mallaig—or perhaps, to stretch the point, Mallaig, Arisaig and Morar. The money has to be distributed fairly throughout Scotland, which is what we have sought to do.

However, I am aware that we have not reached certain parts of the country. As a result, we welcome members' representations about various projects in their areas, because we want to be the Government that reaches parts that other Governments do not reach.

Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):

I echo the minister's comment that the whole chamber supports this programme. However, what are the arrangements for dividing confiscated criminal assets between the United Kingdom and Scottish jurisdictions for use by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the cashback for communities programme? What discussions has the minister had and will he have to take the matter forward?

Fergus Ewing:

I might be wrong—if I am, the member will no doubt let me know—but my understanding is that we use all the money that is recouped from crimes committed in Scotland. There has been no dispute over that issue and, if Dr Simpson has any particular concerns, I would be very pleased to receive the details in writing.

As all members know, it is not our habit to seek unnecessary disputes with or to have unnecessary grudges or grievances against our Whitehall colleagues. There is really no tension or conflict over this matter and I can assume only that, like Dr Simpson and the Conservatives, those who work in Whitehall fully support Scottish Government policy.


Low Moss Prison

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will oppose the renaming of Low Moss prison as HM Prison Bishopbriggs. (S3O-5605)

The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing):

This is an operational matter for the Scottish Prison Service. HMP Bishopbriggs has been the working title for the new prison since 2006, but the SPS will give proper consideration to representations about the name of the new prison in Bishopbriggs before it decides its official title prior to opening around 2012.

I point out to members that the question is about the name of the prison. I call David Whitton. [Interruption.] I apologise—I call Ross Finnie.

Ross Finnie:

I am obliged, Presiding Officer.

I realise that HMP Bishopbriggs is a working title, but the minister must also realise that an ever cynical and querulous public tend to regard working titles as self-fulfilling prophecies. Is it not unfortunate that, even though the prison is much needed and even though there is by and large no real opposition to its rebuilding, matters have been confused as a result of serious and well-felt public concern about the name? Would it not make good sense for the minister to have a quiet word with the SPS about changing the name now to avoid unnecessary public conflict and ensure that the building of this much-needed prison can continue without such distraction?

Fergus Ewing:

As Ross Finnie well knows from his eight years as a member of the Cabinet, the SPS—not ministers—decides what prisons are called. Its policy is to call prisons after their locations. There is a logic behind that approach; for a start, it makes it easier to know where the prisons are.

I also note that Ross Finnie has no objection to HMP Greenock being called HMP Greenock, HMP Addiewell being called HMP Addiewell or HMP Kilmarnock being called HMP Kilmarnock. If confusion has arisen in the cynical and querulous public—that is not how I would describe them, given that we seek their votes from time to time—I would not be arguing that the pressing issue is the name of the prison. Instead, I would be ensuring that we had enough prisons in which to house our prisoners. [Interruption.]

Order.

David Whitton (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab):

As the constituency member, I object to the prison being called HMP Bishopbriggs. Given that the former prison was called HMP Low Moss, I see no reason why that should not be the working title.

I have already sent the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the minister 300 e-mails and letters from constituents on this issue. On Tuesday night, representatives of Bishopbriggs community council asked me why a big beast of the Cabinet such as Mr MacAskill does not simply tell the SPS, "The prison's to be called HMP Low Moss, and that's the end of the matter".

While I am on my feet, I add that we would welcome it if the minister wanted to get on and build the prison, because it has been delayed for far too long and it would do something about the overcrowding in prisons that he and his cabinet secretary are responsible—

Mr Whitton.

Fergus Ewing:

Despite that display of polemics, it remains the fact that Mr Whitton's party, when it was in power, did not intervene in decisions that were the responsibility the SPS. The Labour Party was happy for the policy that I have described to be applied, but the policy that it was happy to apply when it was in government is apparently now inconvenient.

Although Mr Whitton is obviously far better acquainted with the residents and denizens of Bishopbriggs than I am, it surprises me that the most pressing issue of the day in these times of economic recession and crisis is the name that is to be given to a new prison.

I assure Mr Whitton that we are investing record amounts in Scotland's prison estate: £120 million a year. Under this Government there are new prisons and crime is at record low levels—the previous Executive should envy that record rather than decry it.