Chamber and committees

I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

A Sex Offender Audit took a snapshotof prisoners in custody on 18 May 2005. It indicated that of 321 prisoners identified as Schedule1 sex offenders 280 had been assessed for the risk posed to children and 41 werestill to be assessed at that date. The audit made no assessment of the levels ofrisk these individual might represent upon release.

I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

A Sex Offender Audit took a snapshotof prisoners in custody on 18 May 2005. It indicated that there were 402 determinate sentenceprisoners identified as sex offenders. The audit made no assessment of the levelsof risk these individuals might represent upon release.

I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

“Predatory paedophiles” is nota term used to disguise either Schedule 1 offenders or sex offenders and thereforenot identified by the Scottish Prison Service as a separate category of offender.

Analysis of the information gathered during the inspection of pay records for May 2005 at Monaghan Middlebrook Mushrooms, Drem, East Lothian, on 6 June 2005 showed that some workers were being underpaid.

As a result, the employing agencies supplying staff for this site were asked to produce full records dating back to February 2005. Satisfactory information was not received until 14 February 2006. The analysis of this payroll information, for 180 workers, is nearly complete. We expect to inform the employment agencies of the outcome of our investigations by 31 March 2006.

The Scottish Executive does not hold this information from 1999. This breakdown of information has only been collated from 2004.

Please see the following table:

Number¹ Exclusions Amongst Pupils with a Learning Difficulty², 2003-04.

	Primary		Secondary
	2003-04	2004-05	2003-04	2004-05
Aberdeen City	9	18	18	27
Aberdeenshire	21	9	69	78
Angus	-	6	18	18
Argyll and Bute	6	-	36	42
Clackmannanshire	3	3	15	24
Dumfries and Galloway	3	3	42	51
Dundee City	12	12	78	81
East Ayrshire	18	9	54	39
East Dunbartonshire	-	-	3	-
East Lothian	-	3	36	12
East Renfrewshire	-	-	9	3
Edinburgh, City of	18	21	54	84
Eilean Siar	-	-	-	3
Falkirk	9	9	90	123
Fife	27	27	102	78
Glasgow City	15	18	21	78
Highland	3	3	12	18
Inverclyde	6	-	54	72
Midlothian	6	-	15	18
Moray	6	6	12	18
North Ayrshire	3	9	12	6
North Lanarkshire	12	12	69	105
Orkney Islands	-	-	9	-
Perth and Kinross	27	39	-	12
Renfrewshire	6	6	81	51
Scottish Borders	-	6	27	27
Shetland Islands	3	3	3	-
South Ayrshire	12	-	66	54
South Lanarkshire	15	12	84	108
Stirling	-	-	3	-
West Dunbartonshire	3	-	36	18
West Lothian	30	12	51	54

Notes:

1. Data has been rounded to the nearest three to avoid data disclosure. 

2. Data includes pupils with RoN/IEP for the following categories: moderate, severe, profound or specific learning difficulties or complex or multiple impairments involving learning difficulties. In 2003-04, main difficulty of learning data was not available for 1,819 pupils and in  2004-05 it was not available for 1,760 pupils.

The position in respect of the ex-gratia payment made to Professor Alexander was set out in theExecutive’s answer to question S2W-23460 on 8 March 2006.All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

Copies of ProfessorAlexander’s letters of appointment as Chair of Scottish Water can be viewed onthe Scottish Executive website at:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Water/17583/resignation.

The Executive considered ingeneral that Scottish Water’s delivery plan for 2006-10 was too provisional innature and identified potential obstacles to Scottish Water being able toachieve the Executive’s objectives for it without identifying how suchobstacles might be overcome. It considered in particular that the planenvisaged a significant delay in taking forward a number of important strategicissues, including the alleviation of development constraints, that it did notprovide for Scottish Water to out-perform the Water Industry Commission’sdetermination of water charges, and that it lacked a clear means by which the Executive could measure Scottish Water’s progress towards achievement of theobjectives.

The search consultantsOdgers are acting on behalf of the Scottish Executive to identify potentialcandidates for appointment as interim Chair of Scottish Water.

The Executive first madecontact with Odgers in respect of this matter on 2 February 2006 as aprecautionary measure when it had become clear to the Executive that there wereproblems with Scottish Water’s delivery plan that might lead to the departureof Professor Alan Alexander as Chair of Scottish Water. On the same date itapproached the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotlandabout the possibility of an interim chair being appointed in line with herguidance on public appointments, but without the appointment being subject toan open competition.

Professor Alan Alexanderresigned as Chair of Scottish Water because he disagreed with the view of the Scottish Executive that Scottish Water’s 2006-10 delivery plan did not providea clear and convincing basis upon which Scottish Water would, as a minimum,achieve in full the Executive’s objectives for Scottish Water in the period,including those in relation to development constraints, within the limits setby the Water Industry Commission for Scotland’s determination of charges for2006-10.