SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
Justice and Law Officers
Terrorism Suspects (Detention)
To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions the Lord Advocate has had with the Home Office in relation to proposals to detain terrorism suspects for 90 days. (S2O-8154)
The law on terrorism is reserved to the United Kingdom Government and advice on Scottish legal matters is provided by the Advocate General for Scotland. I have advised the Home Secretary that, whatever period of detention before charge is provided for, the procurator fiscal should be the person who makes an application for extension of time to the court. I have also advised that in terrorist investigations it would be inappropriate to have in Scotland powers and periods of pre-charge detention that are different from those in the rest of the UK.
I would thank the Lord Advocate for his answer if he had answered the question, but he has not. We know from Charles Clarke that the Lord Advocate was not consulted in advance, so what efforts did he make to ensure that the Home Secretary was aware of his views, whatever they were? Why were those efforts a failure? Subsequent to the vote that defeated the 90-day proposal and substituted 28 days, what discussions or other communications has he had, and when, with the Home Secretary or indeed the Advocate General on the implications of the extension for Scotland's justice system?
I have already said that the law on terrorism is reserved to the UK Government and is a matter for that Government. My role—
The Lord Advocate is in charge of Scotland's justice system.
The member should wait a moment. The Advocate General for Scotland is responsible for advice on all legal matters relating to reserved areas. My role as Lord Advocate is as prosecutor for all crimes committed in Scotland, whether the relevant legislation originates from this Parliament or from the UK Parliament. My role is to ensure that, whatever legislation the UK Government and the UK Parliament provide for terrorist offences, those offences can be properly prosecuted in Scotland. I did that in this case, in relation to two particular matters to do with detention: the role of the procurator fiscal; and pre-trial detention, on which I expressed a view that that should be the same north and south of the border. I took the view that if there were differences, that would make my prosecutorial role difficult. That is where matters rest.
Mobile Closed-circuit Television Cameras
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to extend the use of mobile CCTV cameras. (S2O-8185)
On 10 November, I announced that we are making £1 million available for flexible response CCTV projects in the financial year 2006-07, in line with the commitment in "A Partnership for a Better Scotland" to expand CCTV in shopping and other areas, to support businesses and others in reducing crime.
I am delighted that the Executive has responded so fully to the question. I know that that response will be welcomed by my constituents. As the deputy minister is aware, there have been some difficulties in the past caused by the lack of control-room space. I ask the Executive to continue to encourage police and local authorities to co-operate in the provision of appropriate control-room space for fixed and mobile cameras in future.
We need all partners at a local level to play their part in taking full advantage of the investment that we make; those who are intent on making good use of such facilities will do that. We have decided to consider mobile facilities in this spending round because we are aware that, while they have proved enormously beneficial, fixed cameras can often be limited and cannot respond flexibly to problems that may occur in different areas and which may need to be attended to. I have looked at some of the mobile units and have been very impressed with the equipment and its ability to identify and record. I want not only to ensure that mobile units are properly integrated with fixed systems but that they are used with the full back-up and support of the police, wardens and other agencies that can make a difference to community safety in an area.
Movement of Prisoners (Correspondence)
To ask the Scottish Executive why my letters of 1 August, 7 September and 14 October 2005 to the Minister for Justice requesting to know what the criteria are for moving prisoners to an open estate prior to their release have been referred to the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, given that the letters refer directly to Executive policy rather than to operational matters. (S2O-8176)
The Scottish Prison Service framework document clearly sets out that the chief executive has delegated authority to make decisions about the management of individual offenders, including their location, movement, discipline, care and welfare, and interventions and activities to further the rehabilitation of offenders in prison. The matter referred to in Mr Rumbles's letters is clearly an operational matter for the SPS.
I am not asking about individual matters; I am asking about policy, which is the minister's responsibility. She knows that the justice system is not perfect and that there might be miscarriages of justice. If a prisoner continues to protest his innocence, is that in itself a sufficient reason to prevent him from being transferred to an open prison regime prior to his release in the normal course of events? I do not refer to an individual case; it is the policy that I am after.
With all due respect to the member, when he writes to me about individual cases I must assume that he is referring to individual cases. I will refrain from commenting here on those, because questions on them have been answered in significant amounts of correspondence. However, it is, of course, very important to recognise that the purpose of prison is not only to punish but to rehabilitate. Part of the risk assessment process includes consideration of whether an offender has addressed the offending behaviour of which a court has convicted him. I expect that to be taken into account in considerations of public safety. It is, however, an operational matter for the SPS.
Fingerprint Evidence
To ask the Scottish Executive what policy or procedural changes it has made in order to improve the quality of fingerprinting evidence. (S2O-8224)
The Scottish Criminal Record Office has implemented all 45 recommendations of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland's 2001 primary review of the SCRO fingerprint bureau. In addition, fingerprint experts now have annual competency tests and are subject to a continuous professional development programme.
I thank the minister for the answer. A statement was made this week by SCRO that where there are two opinions, one must be wrong. If that is the case, how does she reconcile the disagreement between Grampian Police and SCRO? Is it not the case that, until the dispute between Grampian Police and SCRO is resolved, all fingerprinting evidence from those two organisations should be double-checked to ensure that it is correct?
Without referring to any specific cases or circumstances, I put the point to Mr Neil that fingerprint experts at SCRO agree that fingerprint evidence is expert opinion based on the scientific fact that every individual has fingerprints that are unique to them. I think that we can rest on that. Of course, a number of safeguards are in place and I do not—[Interruption.]
Order.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I did not raise or ask about an individual case; I asked about a policy matter. It is little wonder that the chamber is empty at question time, because questions do not get answered.
I think that you are making points, Mr Neil, rather than making a point of order. That is not a point of order.
I will, Presiding Officer.
Mr Gallie, I think that you are ignoring my recommendation that you should bear in mind the sub judice rule. I will allow the minister to respond if she wants to do so, but she is particularly bound by the sub judice rule and there are limits on what she can say.
Thank you for that helpful clarification, Presiding Officer. I always try to give as much information as possible in the chamber, but, as you rightly point out, I must recognise that there are limits on what I can say.
This is a joke.
Order.
Corporate Homicide
To ask the Scottish Executive what steps are being taken to take forward the recommendations of the recently published report by the Executive's expert group on corporate homicide, including the creation of a new offence of corporate killing by recklessness. (S2O-8194)
The group's report contains a number of innovative and radical proposals. We are currently considering the legal and practical issues that surround the recommendations.
I thank the minister for her commitment to trying to progress a matter in which I have been immersed for some time. I appreciate the complexity of the issue, but she will be aware of the desire of my constituents—the wider Larkhall community and the Findlay family in particular—to ensure that companies are properly held to account for their actions and that, in particular, they can face charges such as corporate killing. Will she assure me that the matters in question will be considered timeously and that there will be no undue delay in the Executive or the civil service in bringing them before the Parliament and the wider community for full public scrutiny?
I thank Karen Gillon and members of the expert group for their work in considering such a complex issue and for making recommendations to us. It is right and proper for us to consider those recommendations, their implications, what it would be competent for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on and how such legislation might cut across Westminster legislation. I reassure Karen Gillon that work is on-going on that and that I will report back to the Parliament as soon as I possibly can.
Environmental Law
To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to fulfil its partnership agreement commitment in respect of the enforcement of environmental law, including consideration of the establishment of environmental courts and other options for improving prosecution and dispute resolution, and when it expects to announce its proposals. (S2O-8236)
We have made good progress on the commitment. We have set up a network of specialist environmental prosecutors and improved liaison between them and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The Executive has strengthened the law on wildlife crime, and next year it intends to launch a public debate to test the arguments about environmental courts.
I welcome that announcement, but am disappointed that more progress has not been made in enforcing environmental law.
The member will be aware that that is a matter for the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development and that, as the prosecutor, I have a significant interest in enforcement in a particular area. I am aware that Rhona Brankin made a commitment to having a wide-ranging public debate on those issues at the recent Friends of the Earth conference. The issues are extremely important, not just in the context of environmental crime but in relation to the wider effect on civil aspects of crime and enforcement.
Torture
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of any new evidence regarding offences of attempting or conspiring to commit torture being committed in Scotland or Scottish airspace and what action it has taken as a result of any such evidence. (S2O-8231)
Scottish ministers take allegations of such offences seriously. Civil aviation is a reserved matter and is therefore the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. However, attempts to commit or to conspire to commit torture are crimes under Scots law and it is for the police to investigate allegations of such offences and for the procurator fiscal to decide whether to bring proceedings. If anyone has evidence, including new evidence, of criminal offences being committed within Scottish jurisdiction, they should take the matter to the police in the first instance.
I thank you for your reply, which is familiar to me.
I am not going to comment on communications between the Scottish Executive, particularly my office, and Strathclyde police. The matter is particularly one for the police, whose job it is to investigate crime. They are not instructed by ministers. As Lord Advocate, I am the only person who can instruct the police if I have evidence of criminal offences being committed. If there is evidence of such activity, the proper thing to do is to give that evidence to the police so that they can make an assessment and, if necessary, refer the matter to the procurator fiscal for advice.
Before I proceed, Mr Ballance, for future reference, you should know that, when members use the word "you" in this chamber, it applies to me. Members really should refer to ministers in the third person.
Central Intelligence Agency torture flights are stopping to refuel in Scotland. Any act that aids and abets torture contravenes the European convention on human rights. Will the Minister for Justice give a guarantee that she will do everything in her power to stop the torture flights? We need the police to investigate this matter. We cannot give you the evidence until it has been investigated. Will you get an investigation under way?
I will not. However, on your behalf, I will redirect the question to the Lord Advocate.
The matter is not for the minister, because she does not have the power to direct the police, nor does she have any responsibility for civil aviation in this country. Civil aviation is a reserved matter and it is for the United Kingdom Government, acting under the Chicago convention, to regulate civil aviation.
I do not wish to labour this point—if you will pardon the pun—but I would like to ask the minister outright whether she has had any dealings, discussion or communications with Strathclyde police. Does she agree that, as she is the Minister for Justice, she must have at least some responsibility in this regard and should be aware of all prisoner movements, regardless of whose prisoners they are? You must come clean and say yes or no. Have you had discussions and what have they related to?
Fortunately, my duties do not go as far as gender definition questions. However, I think that these particular questions are being handled by Mr Boyd.
At the risk of repeating myself, none of the ministers around me has any power to direct the police in individual investigations. It would be improper for ministers to do that. I hope that that is absolutely clear. I am the only person who can do that and before it can be done, there must be evidence on which I can act.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I did not ask whether the minister could direct the police; I asked whether there had been communications and meetings—yes or no?
Members cannot use points of order to re-ask questions even if they believe that their questions have not been answered. There is no locus in standing orders for me to determine the content of ministerial answers.
I welcome the obvious seriousness with which the Lord Advocate takes the issue.
I understand people's concerns about such matters. They are serious concerns that should be addressed seriously. I note that Mr Wallace's colleague at Westminster, Menzies Campbell, is progressing that matter and I look forward to seeing what the Westminster committee does.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I ask you to reflect on what has happened during today's question time, particularly in relation to members who have not had the courtesy to stay for the duration of question time and who appeared only for specific ones. Other members who submitted questions that have been printed in the Business Bulletin and sat throughout question time have been disadvantaged.
Although I would like to deal with that situation, I understand that I do not have the power to do so. However, I sympathise with Margaret Jamieson's point about members being present throughout question time.
Enterprise, Lifelong Learning and Transport
A75 (Improvement)
To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in identifying an improvement scheme for the Hardgrove to Kinmont section of the A75. (S2O-8215)
Design work is well advanced and I expect draft orders for the scheme to be published next spring.
Three years ago, the construction start for the scheme was expected to be autumn 2006 and the cost £6.2 million. In January this year, the earliest start date had slipped to 2006-07 and the cost had risen to £9.2 million. I was advised in a letter from the minister's predecessor in April that further problems with the scheme had been identified and that a new scheme would have to be proposed. When does the minister expect construction of an improvement scheme for the Hardgrove to Kinmont section of the A75 to commence and what is the current estimate of cost? Can he guarantee that sufficient funding will be available to enable the improvement scheme to go ahead?
Dr Murray is correct in her assessment of the situation. She is also correct about the cost of the scheme. Although this will provide no comfort on the timescale, I am pleased to say that because of the additional design work, we have been able to reduce the estimate of cost to £6.8 million. It is expected that the project will take 12 months to complete and I am led to understand that it will start during 2007. I will give the member an exact date as soon as I can.
Does the minister share the disappointment of many at the snail's pace at which that improvement to the A75 and others have been progressed? Young men such as I have visibly aged waiting for anything to happen and goodness knows how many ministers have been in office. Does the minister intend to inject some urgency into his department's dealings?
I take seriously the point that Alasdair Morgan, Dr Murray and others make about the circumstances of the A75 and other routes. Several schemes, including those for overtaking, have been identified and are in preparation. In response to questions that were asked a couple of question times ago, I have undertaken to consider in coming weeks several specific issues that have come to my attention in relation to the A75 and the A76. I will pull all those matters together and instigate the urgency that we all need.
Glasgow Airport Rail Link
To ask the Scottish Executive whether there will be any delay to the original timetable for the proposed Glasgow airport rail link as a result of possible changes to legislative procedures. (S2O-8196)
No. We expect the changes that the Procedures Committee is considering to speed the Parliament's consideration of the Glasgow airport rail link bill.
Is the minister aware that I may be the only member who has been an unsuccessful promoter of a scheme under private bill procedures, having lost a proposed tram scheme—albeit to Westminster commissioners—in my role as Strathclyde Regional Council's transport convener in 1995? Is he further aware that I support in principle the replacement of the current procedures with more streamlined ones, but not at the risk of delaying proposed schemes?
I take Mr Gordon's point. He sounds like an eminently sensible character to have on the Procedures Committee, but that is a matter for my colleagues rather than me. I assure him that in the discussions across parties and with the office of the Minister for Parliamentary Business and my office, we seek to streamline the procedure to ensure that the pace and appropriateness of scrutiny of private bills are improved. That is under active consideration at the Procedures Committee and we hope to introduce measures before the turn of the year.
In the light of the minister's comments yesterday evening about the future of Strathclyde Passenger Transport, will he assure us that the Glasgow airport rail link project will go ahead as planned and that SPT will continue to head the bill proposal?
Mr Davidson knows the answer to that question, because I was asked it—I forget whether it was by him or by another committee member—during the Local Government and Transport Committee's consideration of a statutory instrument the other week. The answer is of course yes—SPT will continue to do that task.
Glasgow School of Art
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to help the Glasgow School of Art to develop and to continue to provide a first-class education for art students. (S2O-8207)
In 2005-06, the Glasgow School of Art's total funding from the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council rose to more than £9.5 million. That included capital funding from the learning and teaching infrastructure fund.
Is the minister aware of the difficulties that the school is experiencing in operating from its current campus buildings? Is he aware of the school's well-thought-out plans to develop on its current site and of the capital expenditure that that would require? As can be imagined, the minister's advice on and support for any such development would be warmly welcomed. As a first step towards offering advice and support, will he take the opportunity to visit the school and to see why the investment would be good for our future, our pupils' future and the institution's international standing?
I will take the last point first. I do not want to incur the wrath of my good friend and colleague the Minister for Justice by not agreeing to go to her alma mater. I look forward to that visit. Perhaps we can take in the Abram Games exhibition at the same time.
Kenny Macintosh and I share the job of being in charge of the works of art coming to the Parliament. Will the minister use his good offices to encourage the Glasgow School of Art to get its excellent work into the Parliament, which could be a showcase putting the work of the school in the public eye.
I do not know whether the school still displays any of the works of my good friend and colleague the Minister for Justice. I had a very productive relationship with the Glasgow School of Art before I came to the Parliament and I look forward to renewing the acquaintance. I will raise the matters that Mr Stone raises when Ken Macintosh and I meet representatives of the school. That might help to swell the exhibition of art that we already have in the Parliament.
M74 (Northern Extension)
To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects work to commence on the M74 northern extension. (S2O-8198)
A programme for starting work cannot be set until the outcome of the current appeal against the road orders is known.
Does the minister agree that, the longer the delay in commencing work on this vital roads project, the longer it will be before the much needed benefits of regeneration are realised for communities such as Rutherglen and Cambuslang in my constituency, as well as for the wider Glasgow area and the rest of Scotland?
I understand the frustration of Janis Hughes and the people whom she represents. The delay is because of court actions and, unfortunately, such matters are quite outwith our control.
Edinburgh Tramlines (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to inflation-proof the £375 million funding identified for Edinburgh tramlines 1 and 2. (S2O-8174)
A decision on indexation of the £375 million grant for the Edinburgh trams has not yet been made. That will be considered along with other key issues in the tram business case.
The minister will be aware of the concern in my constituency that there are no plans for a tram stop at the Western general hospital. I hope that the minister will agree that, when we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, we should ensure that the route that is chosen by the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee is the best possible in terms of cost, the environment, social inclusion and wider economic issues. Will the minister confirm that Executive support at this stage is for the principle of having a tramline and not for any particular route? Will the Executive examine the outline and full business cases, and the need for index linking, on conclusion of the parliamentary process and in light of any changes that are made to the route during that process?
Like my predecessor, I will respect the procedures for private bills. Any transport minister would do that. We will ensure that consideration of the business case for this project takes place once Parliament has concluded its deliberations.
I welcome the minister's positive response and his commitment to considering the business case in depth. In signing up to any major transport investment, the Executive must spend its money wisely. I echo Margaret Smith's initial question. I think that it was three transport ministers ago that the initial commitment was given. With every passing year, and regardless of the route that Parliament might select at stage 3, inflation costs must be taken into account. Those costs are nothing to do with the project itself.
I accept Sarah Boyack's central contention. The length of time that we all take to bring such projects to fruition helps neither in meeting cost estimates nor in assessing the business case. We can do what we can, but we are reliant on the parliamentary process that the Parliament agreed to for the handling of private bills.
Does the minister agree, whatever the situation with regard to inflation-proofing the budget, that the population of Edinburgh will be inflated by 45,000 because of the regeneration of the Granton waterfront and that the transport infrastructure of north-west Edinburgh cannot cope with such an increase in population or associated retail, commercial and leisure developments without a tram scheme? As the only realistic option, the tram scheme must be supported by the Executive—
I think that you are now giving a speech, Mr Ballard.
Will the Executive reaffirm its commitment to supporting the development of tram schemes in Edinburgh?
Before the minister answers that question, Mr Ballard, I should observe that I have noted that that question was not the one that you had notified that you wished to ask.
I am happy to agree with Mr Ballard that there is a considerable degree of excitement about the potential for the Granton area of Edinburgh. Many agencies, led by the City of Edinburgh Council, will come together to pursue ideas in that regard.
Glasgow Airport (Discussions)
To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with local authorities and other relevant agencies with regard to possible future development at Glasgow airport. (S2O-8211)
The Scottish Executive has had discussions with local authorities and other relevant agencies in the preparation and implementation of the air transport white paper, "The Future of Air Transport".
Is the minister aware of the serious concern in my constituency, particularly in Whitecrook, about the intense increase in aircraft noise from low-level flights and the intolerable situation that people already have to live with in the summer when the volume of flights increases? Will he please have urgent discussions with West Dunbartonshire Council about the problems that the situation is causing and factor those into considerations on current airport usage and possible airport expansion?
Those points are fair, and I acknowledge the concerns of local people who live under the flight path of a major airport—or, indeed, any airport in Scotland. I am happy to have the appropriate discussions in this area, but I remind Mr McNulty that, the other week, the Local Government and Transport Committee agreed a particular aspect of the new aviation arrangements that will provide more assistance to and opportunities for individuals and organisations to make representations on these matters. I hope that the mechanism will help to address some of those detailed points.
Rail (Freight)
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to increase the transportation of freight by rail. (S2O-8161)
We continue to be very supportive of rail freight. The rail and freight strategies that are currently being developed will address how and where it is appropriate for the Executive to intervene to encourage more transportation of freight by rail.
Does the minister share my regret at the loss of the major freight rail service between Perth and Inverness for Morrisons as a result of changes to Safeway and the loss of Safeway stores in the north of Scotland? As the journey was supported by the freight facilities grant scheme, will he urge his officials to try to encourage a consortium of supermarkets to collaborate on ensuring that the freight facilities grant is used for the Perth to Inverness line? Such a move might remove some of the burden of freight traffic from the A9, for which, as he will know, I have passing interest in trying to secure a dual carriageway.
I accept the argument about the importance of moving freight from road to rail, including on the A9. I am happy to have my officials work with any parties in the supermarket industry, as Mr Swinney alluded to, or in other industries such as timber, where we are making some progress, to consider a consortium-style approach—or, indeed, any approach—that could achieve this objective. I should point out that, since July 1999, we have invested £39 million in 19 rail projects, which every year remove 19 million lorry miles from Scotland's roads. I accept that we could do considerably more and I am hopeful that a number of projects will come to fruition in the coming months. In addition, we have invested in and will make sure of the Mossend upgrade, which will help that overall package.
The minister will be aware of the proposals for a siding at Blackford for freight trains and a siding at Blair Atholl for freight and charter trains. What assessment has been made of the importance of those projects and the project that Mr Swinney mentioned to meeting the Executive's target for road traffic stabilisation, particularly in the A9 corridor?
Mr Ruskell makes a fair point. It will obviously be helpful to our overall enterprise and economic policies in this area for us to move more freight on to rail. I will be happy to look at the projects that Mr Ruskell and Mr Swinney have mentioned. It is important that we keep the issue moving and that we can show a considerable modal shift during the period of this Administration. That is what we are committed to doing.
Most of us in the chamber would support an increase in the use of rail for freight. However, does the minister accept that there are pinch-points at key locations that interfere dramatically with passenger services, not least on the Fife circle line? Will he accept that we have to be very careful about just saying that we want to increase rail freight when we are trying to run increased passenger services as well?
Scott Barrie is fair to point out the conundrum at the heart of rail operational policy. It is important that the route utilisation study that is being undertaken by Network Rail addresses the pinch-points that Scott Barrie rightly raises. We need to get the balance right between increasing demand through the First ScotRail franchise of commuter services such as the Fife circle and our overall objective of moving more freight from road to rail.