Plenary, 27 Apr 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, April 27, 2006

Official Report 656KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

General Questions

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

---

Free Personal Care (Meal Preparation)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Minister for Health and Community Care about the financial implications of providing assistance with meal preparation for those entitled to free personal care. (S2O-9599)

That matter falls to the Minister for Health and Community Care to discuss with the delivery agent, which in this case is local government.

The minister will be aware that a large financial bill is attached to the outcome of those discussions. Is he aware that in many instances—involving councils all over Scotland—people have been charged for assistance with meal preparation when it should have been provided free of charge following the introduction of free personal care in July 2002? Does he agree that when people have been wrongly charged—I have already established that one of my constituents has been—councils should fully refund them? In respect of the discussions with COSLA, has the Scotland-wide cost of making such refunds been estimated?

I will deal with the second question first. I do not have any information about the discussions with COSLA. They are being conducted by the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care.

I will make a general response to the first question. I support any move to refund charges that have been levied if it is established that they have been inappropriately charged. The member may wish to know that we have made available for free personal care £153 million in 2005-06, £162 million in 2006-07 and £169 million in 2007-08. Those are considerable sums of money. Currently, 41,000 individuals benefit from free personal care at home and a further 9,000 benefit in care homes. As a general response, if it is established that anyone has been inappropriately charged, redress should be sought and given.

The minister will be aware that schedule 1 to the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 is explicit: the preparation of food should not be charged for. What discussions has he had with local authorities, half of which have been charging for meal preparation? Should the Executive make it clear to all local authorities that no one should be charged for meal preparation, what financial discussions will the minister have with local authorities?

It would obviously be wrong of me to predetermine the outcome of discussions that are being held with COSLA not by me, but by my colleague the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care.

---

Rule of 85

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to review its current stance on abolishing the rule of 85. (S2O-9595)

The Scottish Executive has reviewed and tested the legal advice and we have concluded that the rule of 85 has to be removed to be consistent with European Council directive 2000/78/EC. We are in discussions with trade unions, people who are employed in local government and other people who are covered by the scheme, because we recognise that its removal creates an anomaly.

The minister will be aware—because he took part in it—that we had a constructive debate on the matter last week in Parliament. In the interests of ensuring that the debate can continue, is the minister prepared to publish the legal advice to which he referred, which somehow undermines what is, in my opinion, pretty persuasive legal advice that is contrary to the position that he has outlined? Its publication would enable us properly to scrutinise the advice on the basis of which the Executive is operating, and would ensure that individuals who are involved in the negotiations with the Executive have confidence in the quality of information upon which ministers have made their decisions.

The member will be aware that it is in the nature of such matters that different legal opinions can be procured by different individuals. The Scottish Executive has done all that it can to ensure that the legal advice that is available to us is robust. We have tested the legal advice, and it remains consistent.

Although we have made available to the trade unions and employers a summary of the legal advice and the rationale that lies behind it through the discussions that we are having on the subject, there are very good reasons why we will not publish the legal advice. When the Scottish Executive enters court, it does so on behalf of the Scottish taxpayer. We are not in the business of going into court with one arm tied behind our back, or of sending our legal representatives into court in that way. Legal arguments have to be advanced in court. It would be unfair on the Scottish taxpayer to adopt a policy of making the other side aware ahead of proceedings of all the legal advice that is available to us.

---

Hate Crimes

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends, during this parliamentary session, to introduce a statutory aggravation for offences motivated by malice or ill-will towards an individual based on sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability, as recommended by the working group on hate crime. (S2O-9655)

In the debate on the legislative programme on 6 September last year, I announced that we intend to strengthen the laws that deal with hate crime. That remains our intention. The Scottish Executive is committed to tackling prejudice in all its forms, as we believe it has no place in our society.

If that means that a statutory aggravation will be introduced, I warmly welcome it.

It is 18 months since the working group on hate crime reported its 14 or so recommendations, and a full year since the Executive told me that it would respond in due course. Will the minister confirm when the Executive will respond to all the recommendations, and not only to the three recommendations that relate to new legislation?

As Patrick Harvie is aware, the working group's recommendations are wide ranging and impact on a number of different areas, including the criminal justice system, the education curriculum, new legislation and media reporting, to name but a few. We have given very careful consideration to all the proposals. I assure Patrick Harvie that we will issue a formal response to the working group in the near future.

It is fair to say that, in the meantime, where new legislation is not required, we have made progress on many of the recommendations.

Is the minister aware of the difficulties that the police face in administering the law as it stands? I am thinking of the problem of our overcrowded courts. Does he accept that it is nonsense to introduce legislation that is almost unenforceable? Surely legislation has to be prioritised.

It is not the Executive's intention—nor is it, I believe, the intention of the Parliament—to introduce legislation that is unenforceable. Since the creation of the Parliament, the Executive has consistently introduced legislation that makes a difference to people's quality of life.

Some things that happen in our society are abhorrent. It is right to put that on the record. I hope that neither Phil Gallie nor his party is suggesting that those in our society who suffer physical and verbal attacks for whatever reason should be left unprotected. The police do the job, and they do it to the best of their ability. I recognise the difficult circumstances under which they operate at times. That said, the Parliament would find it totally unacceptable if the Executive abandoned those in our society who suffer as a result of their views, status, gender or any other factor.

---

Antisocial Behaviour Orders (South Lanarkshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many antisocial behaviour orders have been applied for in South Lanarkshire and how many have been granted by courts in Lanark and Hamilton respectively. (S2O-9627)

A survey of local authorities in Scotland reveals that 51 antisocial behaviour orders were applied for and 17 orders were granted in South Lanarkshire in the period 2002-03 to 2004-05. We do not hold information centrally on the number of orders that are applied for and granted in particular courts.

The minister is aware of concerns in my constituency that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 is not being used as vigorously and effectively as it could be. Indeed, the minister is to visit my constituency this evening to hear directly the concerns of local residents. What steps can the Executive take to ensure that the police and local authorities work together to use the full force of the law so that communities such as those in my constituency do not suffer from antisocial behaviour, as the act intended?

Karen Gillon highlights a particularly sensitive issue. The Executive's legislative programme has been delivered in this regard: we created the 2004 act to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour and we provided substantial resources to do so. We need to consider carefully the next step. We do not interfere in the operational independence of the police. It is up to chief constables to use resources and to decide, through their officers, the ways in which they will enforce the act in their localities. The Executive also does not attempt to interfere in the independence of local authorities to deliver services in their areas. If there is a failure in any part of Scotland to use the powers under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, local members, councillors and communities need to ask councils and the police why they are not using the powers that were granted to them.

I have had representations from other members with constituencies in the Strathclyde area. For example, it appears from the evidence that dispersal orders, closure orders and vehicle seizures are not being applied for and used in the way that other local authorities are using them in the rest of the country. We are producing information that gives a picture of what is happening across the country and we will circulate it to all local authorities and all members. When people are armed with that knowledge, I hope that they will ask the appropriate questions at the local level.

As was the case with an earlier question, Karen Gillon's question relates to local authorities' implementation of national policy frameworks. How can the Executive ensure that local authorities put into effect the agreed policies of the Parliament?

That question is slightly different from the one that Karen Gillon raised, which asked why the police and local authorities are not using powers that have been made available to them.

In terms of the policy framework, everything that has been asked for has been done: staff have been appointed, money has been allocated and plans have been produced. With those in place, we come to a different set of questions, including why dispersal orders have not been used and why ASBOs have not been applied for. Neither the Executive nor the Parliament should dictate what happens in local communities. Local representatives should question those who are responsible at the local level and hold them to account for their actions. Local communities should do the same. It is not reasonable to suggest that we should dictate from here in Edinburgh the exact way in which the powers are used in every community in Scotland.

The minister might be interested to know that my colleague Annabel Goldie was told last week that only two ASBOs for the under-16s, three dispersal orders and no parenting orders have been applied for in Scotland. Will the minister explain why there has not been greater take-up of those orders in areas such as North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire— and, indeed, throughout Scotland—where there is a clear need for them to combat youth crime? The deep suspicion in communities is that they are not being implemented because there are inadequate police to enforce them. Can the minister allay those fears?

I repeat that the powers are in place and the money has been provided. Local agencies must now use them. Margaret Mitchell needs to ask the police and councils in her area why those things are not happening.

We need to have a sense of perspective. The Executive did not anticipate that large numbers of ASBOs for under-16s would be made as a result of the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. Criticism was levied that the act might be used as a blunderbuss, but that was never our intention. The powers need to be used proportionately. That said, where they are not being used at all, local agencies should be asked why they are not using them.

The minister might have read this morning about one of my unfortunate constituents who rode his mini quad bike into a police photo shoot, thereby managing to get himself arrested.

I understand that one of the problems in enforcing the regulations against users of quad bikes and mini quad bikes—at least in the Strathclyde area—is that the police have no forms that they can hand over to people. Will the minister ensure that mechanisms are in place to enable the police to enforce the regulations and that the penalties associated with the use of quad bikes, which are a great disturbance to my constituents, are adequately publicised?

There are a number of examples of local authorities taking positive action to encourage young people in particular to use quad bikes responsibly. In North Lanarkshire there are some good examples of facilities being made available. We encourage local authorities to do that. We will reflect on whether there are any legislative gaps, but it is for local police to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place.

---

Forth Road Bridge (Tolls)

To ask the Scottish Executive what impact varying tolls on the Forth road bridge would have on congestion in the Lothians. (S2O-9657)

The modelling work that was done for the tolled bridges review shows that varying toll levels has the potential to affect traffic flows and congestion on parts of the network, including in the Lothians.

Order. There is too much noise.

Just before the Easter recess, Tavish Scott promised the Parliament an examination of the economic, social and environmental impacts and costs of retaining or removing tolls from the Forth road bridge. Will the minister explain why that review is to be limited to the impacts on Fife and Dundee, given that, as he said, varying the tolls would impact on the Lothians? Will the review consider the impacts on West Lothian, Midlothian and Edinburgh, as well as the impacts on Fife and Dundee?

As the member is aware, the matter has been debated many times in the Parliament. During the most recent debate, concerns were raised that maintaining tolling on the Forth and Tay bridges has a detrimental effect on the economies and local communities of Fife and Dundee. The study will consider whether there is evidence to support the concerns about the impact of removing tolls, both locally and nationally. I am sure that it will consider the impact south of the River Forth as well.

Does the minister agree that the Forth road bridge is not just a local bridge for Fife and the Lothians, but is also the main arterial route for the whole of the east of Scotland? Furthermore, given the current position of the tollbooths and the fact that motorists are charged only for entering Fife, does he agree that the tolls have a disproportionate impact on the economies of Fife and beyond and that that impact is greater than the impact on the Lothians?

Given the concerns that were raised during the debate, I am sure that the study will look into all of those matters. We can only wait until the study is completed and the report is available to ministers and the Parliament.

What consideration has the minister given to examining whether the tollbooths themselves cause congestion in Dundee, Fife and the Lothians?

That is an interesting observation. I am not in a position to pass comment on it. I am sure that the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications set up the study to investigate such issues and that that matter will be considered.

Is it the minister's intention that the Executive should speak with one voice on the subject?

I am sure that the member is aware that the Executive always speaks with one voice on the matter.

---

Transport (Orkney)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions transport department officials have had with Orkney Islands Council, since the beginning of 2006, in relation to internal transport arrangements within Orkney. (S2O-9609)

Transport department officials have had a number of exchanges with council officials on the issue, most recently at a meeting in Edinburgh on Monday 6 March.

The minister might be aware of the correspondence earlier this year between the convener of Orkney Islands Council and the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, in which the convener stated that the cost of the tender for the air services within Orkney had increased by 83 per cent. A significant part of that increase is attributable to the withdrawal from Loganair of the Scottish Ambulance Service contract, under which Loganair had an Islander aircraft based in Kirkwall. Does the minister accept that that is not a good example of joined-up government, given that one public authority's decision has cost another public authority more than £123,000? What does the minister propose to do about that?

I am sure that Mr Wallace makes an interesting point. Following the representations that he made to the previous Minister for Transport, a meeting was held in February 2005 between Orkney Islands Council and the minister, which Mr Wallace also attended. Ministers agreed to work with the council to consider its future internal transport investment needs and officials are participating in a working group that the council has established for that purpose. I am sure that the points that Mr Wallace makes will be taken into consideration as part of those discussions.

I will allow a slight pause for members to take their seats.