Rural Affairs and the Environment
Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (Community Right to Buy)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will consider extending the community right-to-buy provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to urban areas. (S3O-9650)
There are no plans at present to do so, but I am aware of a developing debate in urban areas, particularly in relation to derelict land.
Why has land reform been confined to rural areas and not extended to urban areas, considering the large areas of dereliction in our towns and cities that could usefully be developed for community use?
The original intention of the 2003 act was to remove barriers to sustainable development within rural communities, so it is defined as being about rural land reform and therefore rural right to buy, and is confined to communities of less than 10,000. The feeling was that the lives of people who live and work in large towns and cities are not constrained in the same way as those of people in the country. After all, it is easier for urban dwellers to choose to move homes or jobs; people in rural areas do not have the same kind of choices, unless they change their entire way of life. Therefore, there was considered not to be the same rationale for a community right to buy in the urban context.
Black Bees (Colonsay)
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is committed to protecting the native Scottish black bee on Colonsay. (S3O-9612)
I can assure Parliament that we take this issue seriously. One of the most important steps to be undertaken before we can protect any species is an assessment of the scientific and related evidence. The national standing committee for farm animal genetic resources has agreed to help us by providing advice to Scottish ministers. I am particularly grateful to the committee for taking on that task, because it is outside the scope of its normal work. Its advice will ensure that Scottish ministers have an accurate and up-to-date assessment of the information that is required to make an informed decision on the best course of action for black bees on Colonsay and for Scotland.
I am grateful to the minister for his answer and for the insight into the work that is going on. The threat to the bee population in Colonsay was debated back in May 2009, and Roseanna Cunningham indicated at that time that there was to be a meeting in June 2009 between Scottish Natural Heritage and Government officials. It appears from the outside that there has been precious little progress, but I am glad to hear what the minister said. Will he take a personal interest in the issue, or ask his deputy to do so, to ensure that he drives progress inside the department and, if necessary, bangs heads together and tries to find answers to this definite threat to the bee population in Colonsay, however difficult the answers may be? When there is a will to do something, a way can normally be found.
I feel the urge for a site visit to Colonsay coming on in order to look into the issue in more detail. I assure the member that, as he will appreciate, we must consider a number of issues. First, it is not always easy to define native bee species. Secondly, we looked for appropriate legal powers to designate conservation areas for bee populations, but SNH concluded that it did not have such legal powers, so we are investigating that. However, we will certainly keep the member up to date on progress.
Can the cabinet secretary help me by giving me scientific and related evidence on bee populations in the north of Scotland? Such evidence would give us a better chance to assess whether indeed there is a need for more effort to protect the honey bee. The native bee population is only one part of the issue; the honey bee population is the other.
The member raises a good point. Of course, with the recent outbreak of certain diseases in bee populations in Scotland, we have postponed the publication of the national bee strategy, which will be the best forum for considering some of the issues that Rob Gibson raises. I assure him that the strategy will be published once we have learned lessons from the recent disease outbreaks in Scotland and that it will cover the issues that he has raised. It will also, of course, move the issue of the future of Scotland’s honey bee and general bee populations further up the agenda.
Biodiversity (Glasgow)
To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made since the creation of the local biodiversity action plan for Glasgow and what discussions the Scottish Government has had with Glasgow City Council regarding events planned for the city to mark the 2010 international year of biodiversity. (S3O-9642)
The Glasgow local biodiversity partnership has made significant progress in implementing its local biodiversity action plan and a report on its progress is available on the Glasgow City Council website. For example, five local nature reserves have been established, ponds and wildflower meadows have been created and grassland management regimes have been changed, all to the benefit of wildlife.
I have recently written to all local authorities and MSPs to highlight the importance of the international year of biodiversity and to urge them to take on board the key messages. I understand that Glasgow City Council already has a number of activities planned to mark the 2010 international year of biodiversity. I am looking forward to speaking at an urban biodiversity conference in Glasgow on 30 October 2010.
As the minister will be aware, the United Nations international year of biodiversity coincides with the stated target that was agreed by European Union heads of state in 2001 that
“biodiversity decline should be halted with the aim of reaching this objective by 2010”.
Glasgow accounts for a comparatively small proportion of Scotland’s rich biodiversity, but the important green spaces within and the quality of the environment of our largest city have an immense impact on the quality of life of its residents. Does the minister agree with me that the planning of amenities, infrastructure and housing should incorporate serious consideration of biodiversity in urban areas? Does she agree that 2010 is an opportunity for Glasgow City Council to improve its track record on biodiversity?
Yes, I agree with that. I hope that all councils are actively looking at biodiversity within their local areas, as the issue of biodiversity tends to be much wider than people immediately think. This year, we are looking at a change in emphasis going forward so that biodiversity is not just about specific species but is more about habitats and ecosystems, which means that biodiversity can apply as much in urban areas as in rural areas.
I believe that Glasgow City Council has taken on board all those challenges. It has a number of events planned. If the member wishes, I can write to him with more detail about those events or he can contact the council directly for a list of them. Nearly 100 events are being organised as part of the council’s annual countryside events programme, so I would not say that the council is being at all laggard on the issue. I look forward to attending, I suspect, more than one of those events in the Glasgow area.
Is the minister aware of the feeling in some quarters that geodiversity traditionally has been the often overlooked, poor relation of biodiversity? Does she agree that one way to redress the balance would be to introduce into planning policies and planning advice a geodiversity duty, in line with that suggested by Mike Brown in his petition, which is before the Public Petitions Committee and is supported by Scottish Natural Heritage and the British Geological Survey?
I am not sure that that question is relevant, but I will allow the minister to answer.
I will answer briefly, Presiding Officer.
The member raises some interesting issues, which are under active consideration. As the member may be aware, the Public Petitions Committee has decided to defer further consideration of the petition until the study on which SNH and the BGS are currently collaborating is completed. That study will put the Government in a stronger position to decide on appropriate policy.
Single Farm Payment (Livestock Numbers)
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to ensure that any recommendations regarding the future of the single farm payment will address the decline in livestock in Scotland. (S3O-9631)
The inquiry into future support for agriculture in Scotland is looking at all aspects of farm support and it recently published its interim report. A public consultation exercise is on-going and the inquiry’s final report and recommendations are due to be published in June.
Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that, in Brian Pack’s inquiry and in the context of this afternoon’s parliamentary debate, the issue will now receive the highest priority? To use Stewart Stevenson’s words this morning, will the issue receive “very active consideration” by the Scottish Government?
I can certainly give the member a guarantee that the issue that he raises goes to the heart of the Brian Pack inquiry, and I hope that he will be able to attend the debate on it after question time and make the relevant points.
It is clear that there has been a decline in livestock numbers in Scotland and across much of Europe since support was decoupled from production—the issue is not unique to Scotland. Thankfully, there are some signs of optimism in the livestock sector so, fingers crossed, the decline that has taken place over recent years since decoupling may bottom out. Time will tell. That decline is one reason why we must reform the common agricultural policy. That is on the agenda and we must ensure that Scotland’s priorities are reflected in the new CAP.
Does the Scottish Government agree that crofters and farmers in most of the Highlands and Islands operate in an unusually harsh environment, and that that deserves to be recognised in any changes to the existing subsidy regime?
I agree that our crofters largely work in environments that are harsher than those elsewhere in Europe, and that that should be taken into account in the agriculture support system. The less favoured area support scheme payments that we make take that into account, and many crofters in Scotland benefit from those arrangements and from other support mechanisms. The issue will certainly be at the forefront of our minds when we consider the recommendations that we receive from the Brian Pack inquiry.
Greener Scotland
To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in achieving its greener Scotland objectives. (S3O-9611)
The Scottish Government is making good progress towards its greener strategic objectives. In particular, we have led the way with our leading-edge climate change legislation, which sets ambitious emissions reduction targets; we are well on the way to meeting our key recycling targets and exceeding our ambitious renewable electricity targets; and we are seeing increasing numbers of people accessing Scotland’s fantastic natural environment.
I thank the minister for that update. She will be aware of my interest in electric vehicles and the procurement process that the Scottish Government has been pursuing, which I have raised with the cabinet secretary. Can she provide an update on the work that her department is doing on the procurement process to ensure not only that electric vehicles are rolled out by Scottish Government departments, but that engagement takes place with stakeholders to ensure that they take up that opportunity so that we can meet our emissions targets?
I acknowledge the member’s long-standing interest in the issue. I think that he asked a similar question about procurement last May.
It is fair to say that all ministers in all departments are looking carefully at the work that they are doing to achieve what the Government is trying to achieve across the board. Since a more recent question—which I think John Park asked, although I may be wrong about that—the Scottish Government has published the sustainable procurement action plan for Scotland, which sets out clear guidance to all public bodies on how to procure with sustainability in mind. All departments and all ministers must think about that issue, not just me.
As the minister knows, the greener Scotland objectives include improving Scotland’s built environment and the sustainable use and enjoyment of it. One way of doing that is through the provision of allotments and community gardens. I am sure that the minister is already aware that NHS Lothian has recently made land available to the Royal Edinburgh hospital for such a community garden. Will the Scottish Government consider pursuing its greener Scotland objectives by encouraging other health boards and Government departments to undertake an audit of available land to identify further possible sites for allotments and community gardens, with a view to meeting the growing demand for them that exists in our cities?
I recognise the member’s continuing interest in that area of Government policy. The Scottish Government is well aware of NHS Lothian’s plans to create gardens and grow-your-own spaces. The grow-your-own working group is taking an active interest in those proposals, and if they are successful they could serve as a model for the utilisation of Government-owned land elsewhere. The national health service will, of course, maintain overall control of the land.
Recycling
To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made towards meeting its 40 per cent recycling target. (S3O-9640)
Excellent progress continues to be made as Scotland moves ever closer to achieving the 40 per cent recycling target.
The latest data from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which cover the period from October 2008 to September 2009, show that local authorities across Scotland are recycling almost 36 per cent of municipal waste. I offer my congratulations to the 12 local authorities, one of which is West Lothian Council, that have met and, indeed, exceeded the 40 per cent target. The Scottish Government will continue to support all local authorities to achieve and exceed the target.
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary appreciates the vital contribution of local authorities, particularly West Lothian, but can he confirm whether the zero waste plan will allow councils to adopt the most efficient form of recycling, or will the 60 per cent 2020 target have to be achieved through the more expensive, and potentially less carbon-efficient, kerbside recycling route only?
I guess it depends on how we define the most efficient form of recycling, which may be open to debate. Obviously, I cannot give any guarantees at the moment on what the zero waste plan will contain, as we are currently considering the responses to the consultation. The final plan will be published in the spring, and the Parliament will have opportunities to debate it then.
Local authorities might consider different forms of recycling to be the most efficient, depending on geography and other issues, so we must take that into account. We need a flexible toolbox, as it were, to allow each local authority to do what is most appropriate for its area. The good news is that most local authorities are already heading in the right direction.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will wish to congratulate Dumfries and Galloway Council, too, on exceeding the 40 per cent target. However, a recent report from Audit Scotland states:
“Councils do not have adequate plans to meet landfill and recycling targets beyond 2010”.
It goes on to say that they
“need additional waste management facilities to meet national landfill and recycling targets”.
I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary responded to those statements from the Audit Scotland report in relation to how targets beyond 2010 might be met.
The provision of waste management facilities is important, and a lot of good work is taking place on the issue between the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and councils. The Scottish Futures Trust is considering the best method for funding such facilities. Some local authorities are already moving ahead with such facilities, which is perfectly possible even under the existing arrangements.
Resources have been and will be transferred to local authorities, which they may put towards such projects if they choose to do so, in line with local priorities. I am always open to suggestions from individual local authorities on how to improve the current situation. I assure members that a lot of good work is being carried out to accelerate the number of waste management facilities in Scotland.
The minister will be aware that, notwithstanding the progress that has been made on recycling municipal waste, particularly in South Ayrshire, industrial waste poses a far greater problem, with poor baseline figures and a reduction in the remaining available landfill capacity. How does the minister propose to address the problems of a lack of infrastructure and a lack of capacity, and to solve the growing problem of the disposal of industrial waste?
That is a good point. Although, since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, we have made a lot of progress on recycling targets, if there is one criticism it is that we have perhaps all taken our eye off the ball as far as commercial and industrial waste is concerned. As the member might be aware, I have given a commitment to Parliament that the zero waste plan will put a lot more emphasis on industrial and commercial waste. Although we have made lots of inroads with municipal and household waste, we must now address the wider issue. The member is quite right to raise that point.
Question 7 has been withdrawn because of a family emergency affecting the member concerned.
West of Scotland Catch Composition Rules
To ask the Scottish Executive what progress there has been in reviewing the west of Scotland catch composition rules since the December 2009 European Union agriculture and fisheries council meeting. (S3O-9622)
I continue to regret the fact that, in November last year, the Council of the European Union decided to extend the west of Scotland catch composition rules until 30 June 2011.
In December, we secured a political commitment from the previous European Commission to accelerate work on alternative arrangements, with a view to making proposals in the first half of this year. We are working closely with the industry to shape those proposals, now that the new Commission has taken office. I met the new commissioner’s chef de cabinet in Brussels on Monday and, as well as discussing other issues, I reiterated the need to address this current issue as a matter of priority and to find alternative, better measures for protecting cod, haddock and whiting on the west coast of Scotland.
The cabinet secretary will be aware from our previous exchanges and correspondence that I think that the catch composition rules on the west coast have been unworkable. The agreement on decreasing quotas and effort at last year’s council has put additional pressure on much of the Scottish fleet. In light of that, I encourage the cabinet secretary to discuss alternative measures to the catch composition rules for the west coast and to consider buy-back provisions in relation to measures that the fleet has taken during the past 12 months.
I welcome the member’s constructive contribution on an important issue for the west coast of Scotland fishing industry, particularly the white fish sector. We will take forward discussions in the spirit that he suggests.
There were a number of breakthroughs, which I hope will be useful for the west coast of Scotland and for the member’s constituents. We secured an increase in the megrim quota—megrim is now one of the most valuable fish stocks in Scotland—which we hope will bring extra millions of pounds into fishing communities, and we secured flexibility on where the fleet can catch its valuable monkfish quota. Such flexibility has been called for for many years. We hope that those breakthroughs will deliver good results for the west coast of Scotland and for the member’s constituents. However, the member is right to suggest that there is a lot more work to do.
Justice and Law Officers
Police (Arms Policy)
To ask the Scottish Executive whether there is a Scottish national policy on the arming of police forces. (S3O-9625)
Firearms legislation is a reserved responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. The deployment and use of firearms is an operational matter for chief constables. Scottish police forces follow guidance contained in the Association of Chief Police Officers “Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms”.
I declare an interest in that my son is a serving police officer.
Notwithstanding the cabinet secretary’s response, the Scottish Government has responsibility in relation to firearms, particularly those that are used by public bodies, in the context of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. What steps has the cabinet secretary taken, or what steps will he take, to ensure that the deployment of Tasers by Strathclyde Police complies with the 1998 act and the ECHR?
I assure Mr O’Donnell that firearms are reserved. If he can advise me how that is not so, I will act forthwith, because the Government is committed to taking action on the scourge of air weapons in our communities. If our doing so was simple, I have no doubt that he would have advised me about that by now.
Firearms are reserved to Westminster, which is why the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate on the matter. Tasers are classified as firearms. As we debated this morning, it has never been, will not be under my watch and—I think—will not be for any justice secretary, whatever their political colour, to interfere with the operational matters of our police forces. To do so would undermine the democratic basis on which we operate, through political interference in policing that must be for our communities.
Jury System (Reform)
To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making on reforming the jury system. (S3O-9609)
The Scottish Government carried out a major consultation exercise on juries, called “The Modern Scottish Jury in Criminal Trials”, in 2008. Following independent analysis of the responses, in December 2009 the Government published a statement of the steps that it intends to take.
Will the cabinet secretary respond to a concern that a constituent of mine expressed? My constituent was recently called to jury service and discovered that some 50 people had been called to form a jury of 15 on a fairly minor case of affray. My constituent thought that that represented an excessive loss of working time to the local economy. Was that issue considered in the review? Does the cabinet secretary intend to make changes in that regard?
As I understand it, such issues are not subject to statute but are matters of procedure and guidance in the Scottish Court Service. I appreciate that being called for jury service is for many people inconvenient. We are grateful to the member’s constituent and other people who give of their time to participate in the jury system.
The reason why more than 15 people are called is to ensure that there is a sufficiently wide pool from which to select. There might among them be people who are inappropriate because, for example, they know the accused—especially in rural areas. There are good reasons to ensure that we have the maximum pool. I can only say that—as the clerk of the court and, doubtless, the presiding sheriff or judge would say—we are sorry for any inconvenience, but we are truly grateful to people who give of their time, whether or not they are called, to participate in a fundamental part of our judicial system.
Her Majesty’s Prison Cornton Vale
To ask the Scottish Executive what action it has taken in response to the conclusions in the recent Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons report on HMP Cornton Vale. (S3O-9614)
The Scottish Prison Service will next week publish its strategy for the management of female offenders in custody, and an action plan responding to the HM inspectorate of prisons recommendations on HMP and YOI Cornton Vale. Those documents will be available on the SPS website and copies will be lodged with the Scottish Parliament information centre.
The cabinet secretary will remember some of the questions that I asked after the previous inspection of Cornton Vale. The current inspection report indicates that some prisoners still have to wait up to two hours to get to a toilet. The recommendation was that Bruce and Younger houses should have new systems installed as a matter of immediate action. Have we yet had a challenge under the European convention on human rights to that most degrading situation, in which prisoners are forced to use sinks as toilets? Does the cabinet secretary agree that it requires more urgent action and a strategic plan?
I am not aware of any ECHR challenges. I can inquire of the SPS and get back to Dr Simpson, but it might be easier to ask the deputy Labour justice spokesman, Mr James Kelly. After all, it is Kelly, and another whose name I have forgotten, who tend to bring most such challenges, so Mr Kelly may be able to advise whether any such challenges are on-going.
We are conscious of the challenges that are faced at Cornton Vale, and the Scottish Prison Service is dealing with those matters. I remind Dr Simpson of the response that was given by the governor, who said that the real solution was to deal with the constant churn. If the member wants to show some sympathy and take some action, he should support the Government in ending the regular use of short prison sentences for people who often require more to be treated than to be punished.
Is the cabinet secretary aware that the Scottish Prison Service has recently installed an Astroturf recreation facility at Cornton Vale at a cost of £100,000? Does he agree that, although we are all in favour of encouraging prisoners to take exercise, a normal, hard-standing surface would have been perfectly adequate and a significant saving to the prison’s budget?
Those are operational matters for the Scottish Prison Service. As I said, I am aware of the challenges that have to be addressed, as are the prison service and the governor and staff of Cornton Vale. I have every confidence that they will rise to the challenge, but we equally have to accept that we live in a world of finite resources and that we have to prioritise matters. That should be considered by some people who would seek to increase the prison population. If we spend on prisoners, we cannot spend on pensioners. You pays your money and you takes your choice. The Government has to spend £120 million per annum to upgrade the prison estate that it inherited, but it would rather reward good citizens than continually pander to the bad ones.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his positive response to most of the recommendations in the Equal Opportunities Committee report on female offenders in the criminal justice system. Will he respond to the one recommendation that he ignored, namely that if female prisoners with children continue to take drugs, any subsequent punishment should not impact on their children? Does he believe that, in determining visits by children, the rights and interests of the child should be paramount?
It is clear that we have to take into account the rights of the child. I fully accept that in the spirit in which Malcolm Chisholm has raised the matter. There are security issues but, the point that has been made is clear. We must realise that the link with the child is fundamental to the best way of trying to ensure that the prisoner does not commit further offences and can be rehabilitated.
We also have to address another point that Malcolm Chisholm and others have raised: tragically, 50 per cent or more of the children whose mothers are in Cornton Vale end up in institutions themselves. If we are to break that cycle of offending, we must ensure that appropriate action is taken. I am more than happy to continue to discuss that matter with Malcolm Chisholm and to ensure that the SPS takes it on board.
Serious and Organised Crime (West of Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to combat serious and organised crime in the west of Scotland. (S3O-9587)
We have set up the serious organised crime task force to tackle head-on serious organised criminals who operate throughout Scotland. In June 2009, the task force published its serious organised crime strategy in “Letting our Communities Flourish: A Strategy for Tackling Serious Organised Crime in Scotland”. On 19 January this year, we joined Strathclyde Police for the launch of its implementation plan. The Scottish Government has also provided an additional £4 million of funding over two years to the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency to boost Scotland’s efforts to tackle serious organised crime.
The minister will be aware that a sheriff has overturned recent attempts to ban alleged criminals from operating in the security industry, and that a health board has, because it was obliged to do so by procurement rules, awarded a taxi contract to a company that had allegedly been involved in criminal activity. In addition, an MOT station in my constituency, which was the site of a drive-by shooting and is allegedly implicated in criminal acts, continues to operate because no one has the power to close it down.
As criminals become better at beating the system, can the minister provide any reassurance to communities that those involved in diversifying their so-called business interests are not untouchable and that the Government is working with the police to find ways to outsmart those who wreak so much havoc in our communities?
Absolutely. The basis of the launch of the implementation plan in Glasgow on 19 January was that such people are not untouchable. I recall that the billboard advertising showed people from such communities and elsewhere in Glasgow who had been brought to account and given considerable prison sentences for on-going actions. The director general of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency is speaking to public and private sector agencies and is addressing procurement matters.
It is clear that we are drawing to people’s attention the fact that serious and organised crime is not simply a criminal justice responsibility; people who are in elected positions in health boards and local authorities also have responsibilities. Members of political parties, including mine, must take that into account when they are in a position to deal with such matters.
Patricia Ferguson will be aware that I would happily legislate forthwith on procurement, consumer and other matters that are reserved to Westminster. Until the Scottish Parliament has the full powers of an independent Parliament, we will have restricted powers over some matters, and we will still require to go cap in hand south of the border.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the fear and intimidation in communities in which serious and organised crime has influence. What specific measures are being taken to provide more confidence to people in those communities to come forward, speak out and act as witnesses against those who perpetrate serious and organised crimes?
Such matters are fundamentally operational matters for the police, and I would not wish to interfere in or engage with them. That would be entirely wrong. My answer relates to the earlier question about the use of Tasers. Various matters are being dealt with—witness protection, for example—to ensure that we maximise the ability to protect communities and good citizens who step forward. If Mr Kelly has particular suggestions to make, I assure him that I will happily table them at the next meeting of the serious organised crime task force to ensure that the best advice or suggestions from wherever are taken on board and acted on.
Police (Firearms Training)
To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on specialist firearms training remaining a requirement for police officers who are to be armed. (S3O-9634)
Firearms legislation is reserved. The training, deployment and use of firearms are operational matters for chief constables.
I apologise for missing the question that Hugh O’Donnell asked on a similar topic earlier.
The cabinet secretary seemed to be in a slightly illogical position in this morning’s debate. He called for devolution of control over firearms legislation, but said nothing about what he would use those powers for. If guns and Tasers are to be considered as firearms and the Scottish Government wishes to have control over the use of firearms and the legislation relating to them, surely we should be able to hear from it what it would do with those powers. Does the cabinet secretary feel comfortable with the idea of a fully armed police force? If not, what would he use those powers to do if he had access to them in the future?
No—I do not feel comfortable with that and I cannot think of any member who would argue for a fully armed police force. I struggle to think of anybody in the main body politic in Scotland who would argue that or has ever done so. If the Parliament is to take action and if powers are to be given to any minister, the powers on firearms have to be devolved. Tasers are firearms—that is set in the legislation, because of the method of firing and other reasons. Thereafter, any decision would not be made on a whim or because of a fancy of mine. When the powers on firearms are devolved, it will be for each and every member in the Parliament to discuss and decide on the issue.
Some people might argue that firearms should not be available to police officers, although I would argue against that and would ensure that that would not be the Government’s position. If Patrick Harvie wished to introduce a bill or move amendments to a bill to specify that police officers could carry firearms only under set conditions, the Parliament could legislate on that. However, at present, we cannot legislate because we do not have the powers to do so. Once we have the powers, the issue will not be up to me or my successor—it will be for the Parliament to set the legislation and thereafter for the police and the Lord Advocate to act in conjunction with the laws that Parliament has set. Justice secretaries may bring proposed legislation to the Parliament, but it is the Parliament that enacts bills and gives authority to them.
Question number 6 was not lodged.
Double Jeopardy
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will support Scottish Conservative proposals to amend the law on double jeopardy at stage 2 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. (S3O-9565)
I agree entirely that that law needs to be overhauled. We initiated the Scottish Law Commission review of double jeopardy and we are delivering on it. However, with such a complex and important issue, we should take time to get it right. Rushing through an amendment to that bill risks producing a law that falls short of what is desired. Instead, we should introduce a stand-alone bill at the earliest opportunity, following a consultation, and ensure that the law is fit for purpose in a variety of aspects. I know that the Conservatives share my desire for reform and I would welcome their support for a stand-alone bill.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that positive response. The Scottish Conservatives have campaigned for a change in the law so that, when new and compelling evidence is presented, a new trial may take place at the discretion of the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal. This is perhaps not necessary, but I remind the cabinet secretary that when he was in the Opposition he said:
“Parliament will fail if we do not take on board the principle”.—[Official Report, 22 February 2007; c 32380.]
Will the cabinet secretary give an assurance that he will work with my colleague Bill Aitken—who will certainly work with him—to ensure that the principle is established, however we do so?
Absolutely. I am aware of the member’s commitment on the issue and that, as he said, Bill Aitken has been pursuing the matter. I believe that there is unity in the Parliament that we have to address double jeopardy. The proposed amendment is well intentioned, but it does not go far enough, as it would restrict the crimes that would be covered to rape and murder. There might be instances in which all members would regret it if we did not have power to take action—for example, with a case such as operation algebra. We must ensure that we include the correct offences.
The Government believes that there is good reason why any provision should be retrospective, although we will consult on that. If we proceeded with the proposed amendment, there would be no retrospectivity if new evidence arose in previously heard cases. I look forward to working with John Scott, Bill Aitken and other members to ensure that justice is served for all those who suffer a manifest injustice.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the implementation of the change to the law on double jeopardy should be retrospective so that, whatever the timetable for new legislation, it covers those to whom it should apply? I have a great deal of sympathy with the cabinet secretary’s points on the timescale for new provisions.
It is important that we consult on the issue and it would be wrong for me to prejudge the outcome of the consultation. However, I have been pretty fulsome in saying that I see a direction of travel, as Mr Baker pointed out. I know that the view is shared by Bill Aitken and John Scott.
High Hedges
To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it has made of the 620 responses to its consultation on high hedges and other nuisance vegetation. (S3O-9657)
The final report detailing the analysis of the consultation responses was submitted to my officials last week. I intend that the analysis of the consultation responses will be published on the Scottish Government website in March. We will then consider what steps to take next.
The minister will be aware that I am one of the 620 people who responded to the consultation, as several of my constituents have contacted me with high-hedge problems. I am well aware of the Government’s excellent record on delivery. I encourage the minister to continue to pursue the matter with great vigour.
At this stage of the analysis, has the minister ruled out any legislative measures that might be implemented in order to find a resolution to this issue?
I am aware of the interest that the member and MSPs from across the chamber have taken in this matter. I know that most MSPs have, on behalf of their constituents, raised concerns about the issue with me and, I suspect, with a number of my predecessors.
For that reason, and given that there have been 617 responses to the consultation—the analysis of which we have only recently received—it would be imprudent of us to rule in or out any particular solutions. Instead, we should publish the analysis, consider it carefully and decide how best to proceed—if possible, with as much input from across the political spectrum as can be mustered.
Previous
First Minister’s Question Time