Plenary, 26 Jun 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, June 26, 2008

Official Report 557KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

General Questions

---

Crown Office (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when ministers last met the Crown Office and what issues were discussed. (S3O-3935)

I am in regular discussion with ministerial colleagues about how to make a safer and stronger Scotland.

I am at least the fourth member to raise concerns about the implementation of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, so I hope that the Lord Advocate and ministers will take the matter seriously.

Like other members who scrutinised the legislation, I am getting reports that the number of cases that are being diverted to fiscal fines is not what we expected when the powers were extended. There are reports that the cases that have been diverted from prosecution include cases of domestic violence and serious assaults. Will the Lord Advocate assure me that our concerns will not be dismissed? Will she and ministers commit to give a full response with a full discussion of the guidelines? Will she meet the justice spokespeople and members of the Justice Committee so that we can go through our concerns?

I am always happy to meet the justice spokespeople and indeed the Justice Committee to discuss the implementation of the 2007 act. The legislation is tremendously radical and I hope that it will transform the way in which we deal with summary justice.

I have been a prosecutor for 25 years—more years than it is ladylike to confess, probably. During that time, I have experienced the frustration, in the context of summary justice, of watching cases in which the accused pleads not guilty, only to plead guilty thereafter. Of 70,000 such cases, on average only 7,000 proceeded to trial. Cases churned around the courts—traumatised and worried witnesses came to court, police officers were holed up in witness rooms rather than being on the streets, and forensic reports were commissioned, which caused delay. It was an absolute disgrace that we could not bring justice rapidly and swiftly for the victims of crime, nor indeed for the accused, who would benefit from sharp, swift, effective measures. I was therefore delighted to have the legislation. I know that Pauline McNeill supported it during its passage, as well as questioning and testing it appropriately.

The legislation came into force in March this year, so clearly it is in its infancy. The sensible and measured guidance that has been issued leaves an element of discretion to procurators fiscal. That is crucial to the independence of the prosecution system in Scotland. We cannot have micromanagement of the decisions of procurators fiscal by politicians or newspapers. That would amount to an intrusion into their independence. What we need is good, sound guidance allied with the common sense of procurators fiscal.

I assure the Parliament that domestic violence will continue to be treated with the utmost seriousness. We have a policy of zero tolerance in relation to it. If fiscals take inappropriate decisions or make errors in implementing the guidance, we will ensure that action is taken. The area procurators fiscal and the district procurators fiscal are monitoring the position closely to ensure that there is appropriate compliance.

As far as serious assault and serious violence are concerned, again, the suggestion that fiscal fines would be appropriate is wholly inept. They will not be used for such cases. Violence covers a wide range of conduct, from spitting at someone, chasing after someone, putting a cream cake in someone's face or throwing a piece of wool at someone right up to hitting someone with a machete. When the offence is a minor assault, a fiscal fine may be appropriate, but it would not be appropriate for a serious assault, as the member suggests.

I am happy to discuss the guidance in general terms and I assure the member that we will monitor it constantly for the next 12 months or so. Indeed, the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland intends to carry out an inspection of the implementation, which will be helpful.

On a separate matter that relates to the Crown Office, the Government might be aware that individuals in Glasgow were recently moved on for peacefully protesting against scientology. That followed on from similar circumstances south of the border that led to arrests. Will the Government discuss with the Crown Office the inappropriateness of any prosecutions for peaceful protest against cult activity in Scotland? Will the Government then raise the matter with Strathclyde Police?

I would be extremely surprised if the Government discussed with me, as the independent Lord Advocate, the merits of a prosecution. The fact that prosecution in Scotland must be carried out independently is not a matter of arrogance or pomposity on my part, but a duty that is enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998. I must make decisions independently of any other person, and that independence flows to procurators fiscal, who must act in the same way. When procurators fiscal consider an offence, they do so on the basis of the law, sufficiency of evidence and the public interest. They make their decisions purely and clinically on that basis, not on the basis of any lobby or clamour.

This democracy cherishes peaceful protest. Such protest is legitimate and the European convention on human rights supports it. Where it trespasses into violence or disturbance, or where it might amount to a breach of the peace, that must be balanced against the liberties and freedoms of others that might be trespassed by that protest. That balance is safely in the hands of procurators fiscal across the country, and I hope that the member supports that.

Is not the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 legislation that was introduced by the previous, bipartisan Administration? Is the Lord Advocate concerned that she should not be persuaded by those with a vested interest?

The legislation was introduced by the former Minister for Justice. I fully supported it and, as I said earlier, it is an enlightened piece of legislation. The previous Administration is to be commended for making those radical changes.

Likewise, we should be cautious of becoming hysterical about the use of fiscal fines on the basis of anecdotal evidence. Members are aware that many solicitors in defence practice are very apprehensive about the potential loss of income because of the changes. Some solicitors have survived because of the system's inefficiency and having adjournment business, in which they simply turn up to deal with the business that is being churned around rather than being dealt with.

The intention behind the reforms is that cases and trials should take place much more quickly than has ever happened before. Some of that business will therefore evaporate from the courts, which can only be good for the public and for victims. Ultimately, it will also be good for the legal profession. I hope that the concerns and apprehensions that have been manifested throughout the media will soon calm when the legislation is fully in place and we have had an opportunity to settle in.

---

Telephone Boxes (Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will ensure that no BT public telephone boxes are removed from areas of the Highlands and Islands where mobile reception is poor or non-existent, particularly when the removal may impact on public safety in the event of a road collision, mountain or maritime incident. (S3O-3921)

This is a reserved issue and an example of one of the many areas in which the Scottish Parliament and Government would be better able to respond to the needs and interests of the Scottish people if responsibility were to be transferred from the United Kingdom. The member is clearly keen for the Scottish Government to have sufficient responsibilities to act in this area. I have ensured that her views have been fed in as part of our national conversation, and I welcome her support for the necessary further transfers of competence.

I had hoped that the minister would agree to use his good offices to speak to BT rather than turning the issue into a political football. The phone boxes often have a low level of usage, but when there is a lack of any other means of communication, they can be a lifeline. Will the minister use his good offices to speak to BT and discuss options such as local maintenance contracts, as suggested by the Gairloch Business Association, which would lower maintenance costs and make it more viable for BT to keep the phone boxes open?

I appreciate the member's comments and share her concerns, as I have a similar situation on Jura and in Kintyre. However, the process is covered by Ofcom regulations for BT. Phone boxes are part of BT's universal service obligation and if it wishes to remove one, it must do so subject to consultation. It must put up a poster for 42 days and it must consult, unless there is another payphone within 400m.

We need to get the problem across to local authorities, which should respond to BT, perhaps with prompting from MSPs and councillors, and give objections and the reasons for them. If those reasons are considered to be valid—for example, if the area is a cell phone black spot—the phone boxes will not be removed.

The member and I share an interest in the Highlands, and BT has extended its consultation period to mid-August following the concerns that have been raised. The process exists and we should use it.

Has the Scottish Government made any submissions to BT during the period of formal consultation on the future of public telephone boxes? If so, what have those submissions entailed?

The submissions consciously got across the reality of life out there. This week, I received a considerable submission from Kintyre, which was passed on. The key message is that there is a process that can be activated when there are valid reasons why a box should not be removed. In such cases, Ofcom will issue guidance to ensure that the box is not removed.

---

Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland

To ask the Scottish Executive when the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland will be reconvened and what support will be put in place for it. (S3O-3927)

A meeting of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland took place on 17 June, when the appointments process for new members, the work programme and effective liaison with the Public Transport Users Committee for Scotland were discussed. The secretariat is provided by the Scottish Government.

It might have been appropriate for the minister to apologise for the impact on people with disabilities of his original decision to abolish MACS. He was so driven by a narrow agenda on public bodies that he disregarded his basic equality responsibilities. Will he reflect on the fact that it was fortunate that parliamentary scrutiny was needed, as MACS would otherwise have been dumped, regardless of the damage that that would have caused? One wonders what other decisions have been made without such scrutiny.

Given that experience, what action will the minister take to ensure that equality responsibilities are taken more seriously in other areas? For example, will he commit his Government to ensuring that no single outcome agreement is signed off unless evidence is provided that an equality impact assessment has been completed?

I am disappointed by the tone of that supplementary question. The Government takes its equality responsibilities extremely seriously. It also recognises the important role of Parliament in scrutinising what goes on in the Government. In response to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's debate, which was good tempered and well balanced, we sought urgently to re-establish MACS as an effective body. We will go beyond the commitment that was shown by the previous Administration by ensuring that—for the first time—members of MACS receive a fee for attendance. Previously, they were expected to attend for no fee.

We have delivered equality to members of that committee, who will be on the same basis as members of the Public Transport Users Committee. The Government steps up to and meets all its equality responsibilities.

I thank the minister for responding to the concerns of the disabled community and of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee by agreeing to maintain MACS. However, as the organisation was somewhat neglected in anticipation of its wind-up, it now needs nurturing and intensive care.

We need a question, please.

It is important that new members of MACS are appointed as quickly as possible. Will the minister assure me that he will make all possible progress on that? Has he considered a truncated process that uses nominations to PTUC? Further—

Very briefly, please.

Will the minister ensure that secretarial provision is responsive and supportive?

I thank Alison McInnes for her constructive questions. We are talking to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland about accelerating the process. We seek to establish whether people who expressed an interest in serving on PTUC can be redirected to MACS. I hope that we will make the progress that fulfils the commitment that I gave in my previous answer.

I welcome the decision on MACS. Will the minister ensure that MACS reflects the diversity of disabled people and organisations throughout Scotland?

During the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's debate, I expressed the concern that not all disabilities could be fully reflected within the committee's boundaries. We had a constructive debate on that. I will ensure that we reflect all disabilities to the extent that we can. We will also ensure that MACS and PTUC work together closely. We will use opportunities in the framework of sub-committees for PTUC—if appropriate and in agreement with MACS—to reflect all appropriate disabilities.

---

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with HM Inspectorate of Education. (S3O-3961)

Recent discussions with HMIE have covered the normal business of professional advice and updating on key operational matters.

Following concerns about the HMIE inspections process that have been raised with me and echoed by the Educational Institute of Scotland, will the minister instigate a review of the entire school inspection process? It appears in some instances to have a damaging effect on headteachers, staff and pupils, which is in no one's interests.

I thank the member for her supplementary question. Of course, I will always keep an open mind on the subject to which she refers. However, HMIE's work is already subject to a significant amount of independent review. It has been reviewed as part of the international Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study, and as part of the Crerar review. It is also subject to scrutiny by Audit Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. The independent reviews report the important views of parents, pupils and teachers. The figures show that 87 per cent of teachers rated inspections good or very good in terms of helpfulness to their school. Over the same period, 98 per cent of parents found the inspection of their children's schools helpful.

---

Kinship Care

To ask the Scottish Executive how many local authorities are currently paying kinship care payments to grandparents. (S3O-3937)

One of the commitments in our concordat with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is to pay approved kinship carers of looked-after children a weekly allowance. This means that, for the first time ever—

Sorry, minister—can I have less conversation in the chamber, please.

For the first time ever, more than 2,000 such carers will be entitled to receive financial support. Progress against each of the commitments in the concordat will be reported annually by COSLA at the end of each financial year.

I thank the minister for that answer. However, he did not answer my question, which was how many local authorities are paying the allowance. Other MSPs and I remain concerned that the plans to which the minister referred do not address the needs of kinship carers when the child is not formally looked after or when the carers have a residency order. How will the minister ensure that all local authorities pay a kinship care allowance that is at least equivalent to the sum that the Fostering Network Scotland recommends, and that all local authorities pay the same allowance so that kinship carers do not face a postcode lottery?

I remind the member that the previous Administration had eight years in which to produce proposals to support kinship carers. [Applause.]

Order.

This Government was barely in power before we embarked on a journey to support vulnerable families who are reliant on kinship care. The first step was to establish parity between foster carers and kinship carers of looked-after children. That will be achieved throughout the country over the next three years.

Does the minister agree that the best use of MSPs' time, if they care about direct payments to kinship carers, is to do what I have done in Glasgow? I felt that Labour-led Glasgow City Council was dragging its heels on kinship care payments, and that it was unprepared and giving misleading information.

Briefly, please, Mr Doris.

Does the minister believe that members, rather than grandstanding in the chamber, should meet the leaders of the relevant councils? I did that in Glasgow, and there is now a task force for implementation because a Scottish National Party member—

Thank you, Mr Doris. We have got the hang of the question.

I certainly endorse and support the activities of Mr Doris with regard to Glasgow City Council. I am perfectly aware—

As briefly as possible, please.

We still have a considerable way to go to get to the point at which all kinship carers have access to the support that they need. However, it is incumbent on all of us in the Parliament to support that process and to try not to undermine it.

I ask the minister to remember that he said in the chamber that he would not blame councils for their failure to implement kinship care payments. The minister told us that 2,000 people are in receipt of payment this year. How many people were in receipt of that payment last year?

As briefly as you can, minister.

There was none, as far as I am aware. This kinship care allowance is entirely new. Prior to our new strategy being brought into play, councils had the opportunity to make discretionary payments, and I know that some councils did that.

Before we move to First Minister's question time, I am delighted to say that His Excellency Mr George Liswaniso, the High Commissioner of Namibia, has joined us in the Presiding Officer's gallery. On behalf of the Scottish Parliament, I extend a warm welcome to the High Commissioner. [Applause.]