Transcript from parliament's Official Report of the debate

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): The cabinet secretary is to be commended for her determination to bring about transformational change in the delivery of health and social care. I have listened with interest to the detail that she has presented this morning.

The contributions from Hugh Henry and Mary Scanlon served to remind us all just how difficult it is to achieve change. There seems to be so much inertia in the system. Leadership nationally and locally will be essential to taking the proposal forward.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has decided not to create a new statutory organisation, separate from the NHS and local authorities, and her acknowledgement that that approach would have created further barriers to integration. Her decision instead to build on community health partnerships is a commonsense approach to the reform that is needed.

All along we have advocated that sort of commonsense approach to the reform that is needed. We have opposed the centralisation of care into a single national care service.

As an aside, I draw Kenny MacAskill's attention to what Nicola Sturgeon said earlier this week:

"We are keen to avoid the pitfalls that can accompany centrally directed, large-scale structural reorganisation".

It is not too late for Kenny MacAskill to ditch his centrally directed, large-scale reorganisation of the police service, but that is for another day.

As Scotland's population ages, it becomes increasingly important to ensure that care is provided in a joined-up and personalised way that can respond effectively to local needs. Liberal Democrats are committed to enabling older and disabled people to live independently and with dignity in their own homes for as long as possible. Bridging the gap between health and social care is essential if we are to make that a reality. This is an opportunity to put people not process at the heart of health and social care services.

Liberal Democrats believe that health care should be delivered as locally as possible. Despite much rhetoric on shifting the balance of care, most spending is still directed towards acute services. Often, people are being cared for in hospitals miles from their homes when they would receive better and more cost-effective care closer to home in the community.

More than 60 per cent of Scottish Government spending on care for older people is still on care in hospitals and care homes and almost a third is spent on emergency or unelected hospital admissions. Only 6.7 per cent of the budget is allocated to providing care at home. Earlier this year, NHS Grampian's medical director warned that, unless health services, local authorities and individuals work together, we would have to build a new, 600-bed hospital in Scotland every year from now to be able to cope. In addition, he reckoned that every person leaving school would have to find a job in the NHS in order for us to provide enough care for the elderly.

As well as being better for the individual, supporting an older person to retain their independence is much cheaper. Reducing delayed discharge and unplanned admissions to hospital and increasing the number of older people who live at home rather than in a care home or hospital are not new ideas, but it is proving difficult to achieve the switch in resource. The reality of what has happened with the change fund demonstrates that good intentions are not enough.

We believe that the principle behind the creation of community health partnerships remains sound and that the CHPs are the correct vehicle to integrate the provision of health and social care in the community. They can deliver improved health outcomes locally. However, as we all know from experience and of course from the Audit Scotland report, the outcomes for patients across Scotland are too varied at the moment. CHPs are extremely variable in quality. Some are little more than large and unwieldy talking shops and, in other areas, the relevant health boards and local authorities have failed to co-operate. In many areas, that has led to general practitioners completing disengaging from CHPs.

I share the cabinet secretary's ambition that the reform should be transformational and I agree that nationally agreed outcomes, integrated budgets and leadership are the foundations for change. However, it is important that local responsiveness is not lost, and I welcome the Government's recognition of that point, too. We need to treat people as partners in their care. Social care services should build people's capabilities and wellness in older age rather than react to crisis when it is reached.

The RCN is right to point out the need for shared purpose and mutual respect as the reform rolls out.

Only a couple of weeks ago, we debated the role of carers. Much in that debate should inform the cabinet secretary's work on the reform that we are discussing now.

The Princess Royal Trust for Carers has asked that, from the outset, carers and carers organisations be directly involved in shaping the proposed new care bill and any supporting guidance. It rightly points out that we cannot focus on tackling challenges such as delayed discharge and shifting the balance of care without ensuring that the needs and contribution of unpaid carers sit at the heart of plans to bring services closer together. Carers organisations have a crucial role to play in the process.

How do we ensure that GPs are returned to the heart of local healthcare delivery? They have largely turned their backs on the CHPs-the BMA called them "bureaucratic monoliths"-but, if health and care in the community are to be joined up properly, it is vital that the biggest providers of healthcare in the community be fully involved.

Will the Scottish Government include carer-specific outcomes in the national outcomes for the new partnerships and, through those, in single outcome agreements? Are single outcome agreements the best way to measure progress? How do the reforms fit with the proposed bill for self-directed care?

There are many questions to be answered. This is simply the start of a long process. It is essential that we get it right. Scottish Liberal Democrats will work with the Government on this essential reform to get the best possible outcome.

Transcript from parliament's Official Report of the debate

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): I, too, oppose the bill and will vote against it at decision time. I thank everybody who responded to the Justice Committee's truncated call for evidence. I, for one, found the detailed guidance and informed opinions that they were able to submit at such short notice to be absolutely invaluable. I can only offer my sympathies to the vast majority of them, whom the Government has chosen simply to ignore.

Meeting of the Parliament, 01 December 2011: Transcript from Parliament's Official Report

15:59

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): I, too, welcome the publication of Lord Carloway's report. It is a thorough and reasoned piece of work, and we must now give full and fair consideration to its recommendations. His approach has been not merely to do the bare minimum to comply with the European convention on human rights; instead, as he puts it, he has been at pains to

"re-establish Scotland at the forefront of the law and practice of human rights in general."

Lord Carloway admits that he has

"challenged traditional legal thinking, looking to modernise, clarify and simplify the system as a whole wherever possible".

I sincerely hope that the legal profession and the wider criminal justice system are open to change and reform. Let us not forget that the Cadder ruling was possible only because we did not take sufficient heed of warnings that the right to a fair trial was being compromised by our processes, relying instead on a perhaps complacent view that our justice system was the best. At the time of the Cadder ruling, some people took the view that this had tilted the justice system in favour of the suspect and that there needed therefore to be some rebalancing. I welcome Lord Carloway's assurance that

"the Review has not sought to analyse whether there has been a tilting or not and, in any event, in whose favour the balance has wavered. It has not approached its remit with a view to re-adjusting the system in favour of any particular institution or group of persons."

Protecting peoples' rights and ensuring a fair trial must be at the heart of any reforms. Our justice system must be robust and fully compliant with the ECHR. Lord Carloway's report has those goals at its core, but the changes put forward are both radical and substantial, and so will need further detailed study. Lord Carloway has certainly pushed his remit to the limit.

Understandably, the recommendation that has caused the most debate is that of abolishing the need for corroboration. Some of Lord Carloway's own review group demurred from that finding. The Law Society of Scotland expressed grave concerns, and Maggie Scott QC, the chair of Justice Scotland, said that the removal of corroboration would risk "justice being undone". High Court judges and sheriffs have also expressed their concern.

Corroboration is a long-established rule to prevent wrongful convictions, which bring the law into disrepute. It is one of the primary foundations of the system of Scots criminal law, and it serves as an important safeguard against miscarriages of justice. A proposal to abandon corroboration, especially without the introduction of formal guidelines to assess the quality of evidence, would certainly weaken that safeguard. Lord Carloway gave evidence to the Justice Committee on Tuesday of this week, and it was interesting to have the opportunity to explore in detail his reasoning for this particular recommendation. He explained to the committee that he

"could find no evidence that in Scotland, which is the only country in the world that has a rule on corroboration across the board, there is a lower miscarriage of justice rate than in any other country in the civilised world-and nobody suggested to us that it has."

He went on to explain:

"We looked at the other side of the coin and asked whether corroboration is actually impeding justice, and we concluded that that is exactly what it is doing in cases in which there is a victim of crime and coincidentally there does not happen to be corroboration."-[Official Report, Justice Committee, 29 November 2011; c 529-30.]

That is an interesting argument, and it is worthy of serious consideration. We must be careful, however. Just because corroboration has not been the gold-plated guarantee of a fair trial that we thought it was, that does not mean to say that it is worthless. It remains a good safeguard. It could also be argued that it encourages rigour in any investigation. We should be extremely cautious about any proposal to abolish it, because once the change is made, there will be no going back.

I genuinely look forward to further debate on this recommendation, but as yet I remain to be convinced that it would be the right way forward. If the Government is of a mind to pursue it, however, surely a change of this magnitude deserves further detailed scrutiny. Given the significance of the proposed change, I wonder whether the next step ought to be the establishment of a royal commission on criminal evidence. I urge the cabinet secretary seriously to consider that route. The Scottish National Party must not use its majority to pass legislation on such an important issue without giving it really detailed scrutiny.

There is much to welcome in the report, not least the added protections that are proposed for children and vulnerable adults. I support the recommendations that all children should have the right of access to a parent, carer or responsible person if detained, and that the general role of the parent, carer or responsible person should be defined in statute as consisting of the provision of any moral support, parental care and guidance to the child and promoting the child's understanding of any communications between him or her, the police and his or her solicitor. Those would be valuable safeguards for our young people. It is also right that no child should be able to waive their right to access to a lawyer.

There is clearly a requirement for further consultation before coming to a statutory definition of the terms "vulnerable suspect" and "appropriate adult". The safeguards proposed to limit the time for which a suspect can be held in detention before appearing before a court are also welcome. Lord Carloway has resisted recommending the setting up of Saturday courts, but recommends that the matter be kept under review. I would go further and suggest that the Justice Secretary should now consider the need for Saturday courts, to ensure that our system is as fair and robust as possible.

The proposals relating to police bail and investigative liberation are innovations that require further consideration.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats will carefully consider the proposals in Lord Carloway's report and look forward to debating the matter in greater detail over the coming months. Scotland must have a robust and fair justice system that is fit for the 21st century and fully accommodates our ECHR commitments.

Meeting of the Parliament 24 November 2011: Transcript from the Official Report

15:45

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): Alex Johnstone remarked earlier on the familiar faces in chamber this afternoon and it is something of an unexpected pleasure to be back speaking on climate change for the Lib Dems. I and, I am sure, the minister, thought that those days were behind me, but I am afraid that my colleague, Jim Hume, is away on a humanitarian mission this week, so here I am again.

I see that not much has changed in the few months since I last spoke on climate change. The Government is still quick to trumpet our "world-leading" climate change Bill, but is rather more circumspect when it comes to actually putting in place the measures that will enable us to meet our ambitious targets. I will turn to that in a moment; however, I start by welcoming the fact that Scotland will be represented on the UK Government's delegation to the COP17 conference in Durban next week. It is important to recognise the work that has been done by Chris Huhne at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, not only in driving the UK Government forward to ensure that it is the "greenest" ever, but also for the pro-active and inclusive approach that he has taken in engaging with the Scottish Government.

The Government's motion is right to highlight that action on climate change should not be seen as a burden but, rather, as an opportunity for innovation and growth. Scotland has the opportunity to develop itself as a green energy powerhouse, and it is right that we are able to share our experiences with the rest of the world. As has been said already today, the fight against climate change cannot succeed on the basis of action being taken in just one country. The conference of the parties summit is a vital forum for engagement, and I am pleased that it is one in which Scotland can participate fully.

The motion this afternoon also notes the urgent need for action. I fully endorse that sentiment. Early action is absolutely vital - global action that will mitigate and limit the worst effects of climate change, and the action that we need to take here to meet the targets in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. On that, I was interested to see the Minister's appearance at Rural Affairs, Environment and Climate Change Committee yesterday to discuss the use of carbon credits towards targets from 2013.

From the beginning of our work on the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, everyone involved was clear that domestic effort must be the focus of our efforts. The use of carbon units should be a last resort: indeed, we chose not to allow them to be used towards the 2010, 2011 and 2012 targets at all. I recognise, of course, that in setting the latest limits, the minister is following the advice of the UK Committee on Climate Change and that the availability of carbon units does not necessarily mean that they will be used. Indeed, despite the relatively low price that was mentioned by the minister yesterday, I must trust that the Government will not be tempted to rely on the credits as an easy way to hit our targets.


Patrick Harvie: I am grateful to Alison McInnes for giving way, but I am slightly concerned that she says we "must trust ... the Government" not to do that. If we want the Government not to do it and the Government says that it does not want to do it, why should we pass an order that will allow the Government to do it?


Alison McInnes: Patrick Harvie will know that I am keen to ensure that we do not allow the use of carbon units at all, but we are where we are. I said, "I trust" - I do not mean that I really believe that that is the case. I genuinely hope that I am proved wrong and that the Government does not intend to use the units if at all possible. Our emissions are our own responsibility and purchasing credits cannot be looked at as a substitute for real domestic action.

Actually, it is not the credits themselves that I would like to touch on but, rather, a worrying detail that is mentioned in the advice of the UK Committee on Climate Change. It notes that, given the current EU-wide target and the current policies that are outlined in the RPP, our 2015, 2016 and 2017 emissions targets would be missed. Even if we add the maximum effect of all of the RPP's proposals, the 2017 target would still be missed, and that is the best-case scenario, so to speak. For the RPP's proposals and policies to become a reality, they need to be properly budgeted for; I am afraid that, on current evidence, that is simply not the case.

Transport is one of the biggest contributors to the non-traded sector of emissions in Scotland, yet the Government has budgeted, by some fairly generous calculations, just £30 million for low carbon transport measures in 2012-13. Friends of the Earth Scotland estimates that, over the three years that are covered by the latest spending review, funding for sustainable travel is barely a tenth of what is needed to fully fund the RPP and barely 5 per cent of the amount that will be spent on roads.


Kevin Stewart (Aberdeen Central) (SNP): Will the member give way?


Alison McInnes: I am almost at the end of my speech. There seems to be a worrying trend across the spending review: a real-terms cut in support for sustainable and active travel, in support for bus services, in funding for the zero waste initiative, and so on.

There are tough decisions to make, but it is up to the Government to decide what its priorities are. Ensuring that Scotland's message on climate change to other countries has substance and is not empty rhetoric should be one priority.

Some movement has taken place on energy efficiency in homes. I would like action to go further still, but I welcome the increase in the budget for energy efficiency measures. However, I will sound a small note of caution. My experience of a recent visit at home from a local company that is working on a home insulation scheme highlighted that people are still largely unaware of the financial support that is available to help to improve energy efficiency and, thereby, to reduce emissions at home. The Government still needs to address that lack of public engagement.

As the minister will well remember, we spent a great deal of time last summer on ensuring that the RPP was comprehensive and ambitious. It is the sort of document that might well serve as a best-practice example at next week's summit, but it will be of use only if the Government has the will to follow it through.

I think that we all agree that we should be proud of the action that we have taken on climate change and that engaging positively with other COP17 participants is important. However, I echo Sarah Boyack's sentiments: we must work with other nations and encourage them to do their bit to reduce emissions, but it is just as vital that we do not become complacent in our efforts here at home.

Meeting of the Parliament 23 November 2011: Transcript of speech from the Official Report

15:04

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): If we asked for a show of hands from members who are either carers or who know of someone close to them who is a carer, we would have an almost 100 per cent result. That is not surprising because, as we have already heard from the minister, there are more than 650,000 unpaid adult carers and more than 100,000 young carers in Scotland, each one of whom provides valuable support. In one way, that is great. After all, if people who have long-term illnesses, disabilities or other health problems are being looked after by their friends or family, they are being looked after properly in their own home by people who know them well and really care for them. Without those carers, many people would have less fulfilling lives and the cost to the state would be immense, so it is in everyone's interests that they are supported.

We are all quick to acknowledge the invaluable work that carers do day in and day out, week after week, but carers tell me that, although it is nice to be valued, they do not need gold stars or plaudits; they need proper help, support and respect. A carers' rights charter is overdue. The carers strategy promised that a charter would be in place by December, but the year one progress report tells us:

"The Scottish Government will shortly commission the production of the Carers Rights Charter from the voluntary sector."

I hope that the minister can tell us why it has been stalled and agree that it is time that the Government got on with delivering it.

The Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Bill will be introduced shortly and, among other things, will enable self-directed support for carers. However, the extension of rights to carers in the draft bill is not as strong as it could be as, in its current form, the bill gives only a discretionary power to local authorities to support carers. The organisations that represent carers have said that they are keen to see the power expressed as a duty on councils. The bill will be an opportunity to give carers a right to be recognised and supported and I ask the Government to reconsider its approach.

The carers strategy has our broad support and I acknowledge the progress that has been made, but there is still so much to do to translate worthy sentiment into reality. What is it like for carers today? For too many, it is a life of poverty, isolation, frustration, ill health and depression. Many people give up an income, future employment prospects and pension rights to become a carer. Many carers also work outside the home and have to juggle jobs with their responsibilities as carers. The majority of carers struggle alone and do not know that help is available to them. Carers tell us that access to information, financial support and breaks is vital in helping them to manage the impact that caring has on their life. Carers tell me of their anger and frustration that the care of their loved ones by the NHS or other home care workers is not as good as it should be.

It is time for carers to be recognised as equal partners in care. They are experts who understand their loved ones and they can work with professionals to ensure that the personalised care that each individual needs brings them the best quality of life.

My amendment asks Parliament to recognise

"that access to short breaks is a vital part of the Scottish Government's preventative approach".

Regular breaks from caring are essential to carers if they are to continue in their caring role. The benefits and cost savings of short breaks are clear. Carers are half as likely to suffer mental health problems if they have a break. A 2009 report demonstrated that, if effective short breaks were delivered to all disabled children in England for whom short breaks were appropriate, the potential saving to the state could be in the region of £174 million per year.

Some people are being offered only a few hours' break each week, while people in similar situations in other areas are given more hours, so the approach to needs assessment is inconsistent. There is a worrying lack of accessible respite in rural areas, with the respite hours being reduced because of the time that has to be spent travelling to the service. Lack of suitable respite, choice and flexibility and a lack of involvement with carers and service users in planning short breaks are other issues. More and more breaks are offered only as emergency relief, which means that carers cannot access respite that could prevent crisis situations.

When carers and their families are forced to struggle on until they can no longer cope, the pressure increases on local services because crisis situations often result in hospitalisation. I urge the Government to work with local authorities and health boards to introduce a short-break entitlement for those who are in greatest need. Carers who have significant caring responsibilities should be entitled to a guaranteed minimum number of hours of respite care.

As well as ensuring equality of access, short breaks should be innovative, personalised and flexible, so that they meet carers' needs. Carers and service users should be partners in the planning of short breaks, and the focus should be on early intervention and prevention. Because the average cost of a week's stay in hospital is more than £3,000 while a care home place costs around £600 a week, it is clearly in everyone's interests to prevent crisis situations from developing.

The continuation of the change fund is welcome. A great deal of excellent work is undoubtedly funded through the reshaping care change fund pilot, but the mid-year review of funding allocation has given cause for concern. The analysis shows that only 18 per cent has been allocated to preventative and anticipatory care and 19 per cent has been spent on hospital and institutional care, which essentially means that we are investing in other ways of providing existing services.

The commitment on dedicating at least 20 per cent of the change fund to supporting carers is to be welcomed, given the increase in demand that carers organisations are experiencing. Last year, the Princess Royal Trust for Carers supported some 54,500 unpaid carers through a network of 29 carers centres. However, there are still questions about the extent to which that money will reach community-based support projects and benefit carers on the ground. Organisations such as the VSA and the Princess Royal Trust for Carers play a vital role in helping carers to manage the impact of caring on their lives, and they must be fully involved in the change fund plans when they are considered.

I move amendment S4M-01399.2, to insert at end:

"; recognises that access to short breaks is a vital part of the Scottish Government's preventative approach, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the development of a carers rights charter, in partnership with the voluntary sector, is not subject to further delay."
____________________________________________________________

Meeting of the Parliament 10 November 2011: Keeping Communities Safe. Transcript from the Official Report

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): It is welcome that the Labour Party has used its debating time this morning to focus on keeping communities safe. This is an important debate that allows us to highlight shortcomings that we think will impact on that.

During its budget scrutiny, the Justice Committee received written evidence from the Procurators Fiscal Society that highlighted the significant increase in the number of unmarked cases and attributed that to a reduction in staff numbers in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. A further reduction in its budget is hardly likely to improve the situation.

Kenny MacAskill: Is the member aware that the Lord Advocate has made it quite clear that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service had 513 lawyers in June this year, which compares with 446 in the halcyon days of Labour-Liberal rule in June 2007? That is a significant increase.

Alison McInnes: I did indeed see that correspondence. It is for the cabinet secretary to reconcile the two different points of view. I know that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is facing a reduction in its budget this year, which is hardly likely to improve the situation.

Fresh research that was conducted by the Scottish Liberal Democrats via freedom of information requests updates the figures and reveals that, over the past year, there has been a reduction of 566 civilian staff jobs in police forces throughout Scotland. Police forces such as Central Scotland Police and Grampian Police have seen the biggest reductions-the figures are 18 and 14 per cent respectively.

In addition to the many administrative posts that have been lost, a wide range of other jobs have been lost from police forces throughout Scotland, including crime intelligence analysts, police custody officers, community wardens, road safety officers, a firearms licensing manager, and wildlife and environmental crime officers. It is clear that police forces are losing a wealth of knowledge and expertise that, until now, was harnessed to help to cut and prevent crime in Scotland. That is a retrograde step.

Civilian staff fulfil an important role in helping to keep Scotland's streets safe. They provide essential expertise and skills in the fight against crime, and they help to keep front-line police staff out on the streets protecting communities. A reduction in civilian numbers could lead to Scotland's visible police force being rapidly eroded. I urge the Scottish Government to recognise that it is essential to maintain a balance between civilian staff and front-line officers, not just for their expertise, but for the fight against crime in communities. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice needs to explain how the Scottish Government will get the balance right, because the public will continue to be protected only through that being achieved.

During last year's budget scrutiny, ACPOS warned that focusing purely on maintaining police officer numbers would result in police being taken off the beat to perform civilian staff functions. In evidence to the Justice Committee, Chief Constable David Strang said:

"If we reduce the number of front-line staff who do essential jobs, there is a real risk that we will have to remove police officers from other duties. For example, if we make custody officers redundant, we will have to release police officers to look after prisoners in police stations."-[Official Report, Justice Committee, 23 November 2010; c 3815.]

The Scottish Liberal Democrats are absolutely committed to keeping communities safe. We recognise that front-line civilian staff are an integral part of any modern police force. I agree with ACPOS that forces should have flexibility in the way that they deploy resources to maintain front-line policing.

However, let us be clear that the staffing reductions that I have mentioned will be only the tip of the iceberg if the cabinet secretary pursues his proposal for a single police force. The kind of savings that the Government claims would come from the creation of a single police force could be realised only through staff cuts that would lead to the loss of around 4,000 officers throughout Scotland.

Losses on that scale would put the current community focus of our police services under immense pressure. Chief Constable Colin McKerracher of Grampian Police has warned that it would risk a return to the crime-fighting, call-response mode of policing, in which officers run around answering calls for crimes that have occurred because they are no longer able to prevent them. Much good work would be lost, and the performance of which the Government has been so proud this morning would be jeopardised.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that the most effective way of keeping communities safe is to ensure that our police services are properly resourced, locally accountable and flexible enough to respond to local needs and that policing remains part of the local government family. The development of close links between criminal justice services, social work services and education, drug and alcohol services has brought about great progress on tackling the root causes of crime.

Transcript from Scottish Parliament debate

Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill (Stage 2 Report)

Thursday 3 November


Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): Let me make it clear from the start that I unite with everyone else in the chamber to condemn sectarianism and to strive to bring about an end to bigotry and intolerance. There should be no place for it in our country.

The committee heard evidence that tackling sectarianism is not something that we can do in isolation from the top down. Lasting change needs to come from within our communities. Paragraph 36 of the committee report states:

"Evidence from organisations working with children and young people has underlined that both the problem and the solution start early. Attitudes towards 'difference' and 'otherness'-both negative and positive-are ingrained from an early age. Parents and other early-years role models have a crucial role to play in helping nurture positive attitudes and respect for difference. So does education."

Law making should be a measured and considered process that takes our citizens with us through detailed scrutiny and evidence taking. It ought not to be driven by a desire to seize the headlines. The Scottish Parliament has built a reputation for being open and consultative. Our procedures have been widely recognised as a good way to do business-until now.

There has been widespread criticism of the something-must-be-done approach that the Scottish National Party has taken on the matter. It was wrong to try to legislate on such a complex matter with emergency legislation. That is the real root of the problem: hastily drafted legislation introduced in the first few weeks of a new Administration. I am glad that in June the First Minister was forced to back down and give ground, because it gave the Justice Committee time to have a limited consultation and evidence taking. That evidence has been reported to Parliament today, and our report exposes the extent of the dangers inherent in the bill.

I thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee and the clerks who assisted us so ably. We had many insightful contributions from organisations such as Nil by Mouth and Action for Children Scotland that have a great deal of knowledge about the impact of sectarianism. There were measured and thoughtful responses from scores of organisations and individuals representing a good cross-section of Scottish society. Is the Government really saying that their views count for nothing and that the only voices worth listening to are those of our police and prosecutors?

It is plain that the Bill is ill thought out and will do little to address the underlying problems associated with sectarian behaviour. It strays blithely into restrictions on freedom of speech and verges on hate thought crime. Those are compelling reasons not to support the bill, which is why I am particularly annoyed that the minister chose to paint those opposed to it as obstructive and partisan. Scots rightly expect a much more constructive and reflective response from their Government when such fundamental issues are raised.

Only committee members who belonged to the Government party felt able to lend their qualified support to the bill. All the other committee members have concluded that it is unnecessary and unworkable and will have far-reaching and unintended consequences. They do not believe that the Scottish Government has made the case for the necessity of a new offence; instead, they believe that a more proportionate response to the problems in Scottish football would be to give more consideration to the use of existing laws, enforced effectively and combined with other non-legislative measures.

Members should note that in the past six months there has been a marked increase in prosecutions under the existing legislation for both sectarian chanting and internet abuse. The minister told the committee that the new offence will not tackle hugely different behaviour:

"we are turning breach of the peace into a more concrete offence so that people are clear about what is being tackled."-[Official Report, Justice Committee, 21 June 2011; c 17.]

The evidence we heard contradicted that. Professor Devine said:

"the issue of offensive behaviour is by no means clear cut. Throughout the process, members have continually asked witnesses to define such terms and, in my personal view, the answers have been intellectually unconvincing."-[Official Report, Justice Committee, 13 September 2011; c 242.]

The committee report is frank. Paragraph 148 says:

"uncertainty still surrounds some key issues".

Paragraph 149 says:

"the Committee notes that it is also important to ensure that the legislation itself is robust".

Paragraph 163 says:

"The Committee invites the Scottish Government to reflect on concerns that the 'catch-all' test for offensive behaviour set out in section 1(2)(e) may be too expansive and may raise concerns in respect of adherence to freedom of speech".

Paragraph 195 says:

"the Government should consider whether the parameters of the offence ... need to be made clearer".

Finally, paragraph 196 asks

"whether there is scope to make the relevant provisions any more clear".

The Government considers that the lack of clarity in the bill can be addressed by the Lord Advocate issuing guidance on how it should be interpreted. The trouble with that approach is that guidelines can change. Relying on that kind of soft law to clarify legislation is a dangerous road to go down. Scots deserve better and they have the right to understand what would constitute an offence.

The catch-all nature of section 1(2)(e) that refers to

"behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive"

has caused many to raise concerns, as have the religious hatred provisions. Shelagh McCall of the Scottish Human Rights Commission told the committee:

"Offensive speech is protected by article 10 of the European convention on human rights. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and domestic courts have repeatedly said that not only popular speech but offensive, unpopular, shocking and disturbing speech is protected".-[Official Report, Justice Committee, 20 September 2011; c 279.]

At times during the evidence taking it felt like we had strayed into the pages of "Alice in Wonderland". The bill appears to enable a conviction for offensive behaviour even when no one is there to be offended. A person may be regarded as having been on a journey to or from a regulated match, and therefore subject to the new legislation, whether or not they attended or intended to attend the match and whether or not their journey included overnight breaks.

We were urged not to worry about ECHR compliance, because the Lord Advocate assured us that he cannot act in a way that is incompatible with ECHR. That is a circular argument if ever I heard one-we might keep the Supreme Court busy on that.

The Government has a majority, so it can pass this law, but there is a real risk that it will do more harm than good. It has already alienated people. Does the Government have the sense not to press on? I urge it to put its efforts instead into practical measures that would make a difference.

Transcript from the Scottish Parliament Official Report, 27 October 2011, debating motion S4M-01133 on ensuring the integrity of Scots criminal law.

Scots Criminal Law (Integrity)

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the review group's report and set it in the context of the wider debate. I find it interesting that, after the Government's refusal for so long to engage with the Scotland Bill process, it is now taking to scheduling debates in the Parliament in the hope of encouraging ever more amendments to it.

It is difficult to know where to begin with the Government's motion. I am drawn immediately to the reference to

"restoring the High Court to its rightful place at the apex of"

the Scottish legal system. I agree that the High Court should remain as the final court of appeal in Scottish criminal cases, but the key word is "remain". I do not believe that its position has ever been in doubt. There are certainly some issues about the precise way in which our legal system interacts with the Supreme Court and it is right that that relationship should be clarified. I will touch on those issues in a moment, but first I must again thank Lord McCluskey and his group for their work on the report. Hearing additional viewpoints to inform the debate is always helpful. However, I must repeat two points that I made in our debate on the initial report in June.

First, let us remember that the report was commissioned by the Government as an attempt to justify its intemperate comments towards the Supreme Court on the back of the Nat Fraser ruling. That the report has singularly failed to endorse the Government's call that the Supreme Court should play no role in Scotland should serve as a reminder to both Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond that they ought to think a little before they shout. Secondly, I am still unsure why we seem to be giving the report the same weight and significance as the report of the Advocate General's expert group, which was put together over many months on the back of evidence taking and discussions with a wide range of experts and interested parties.

That said, Lord McCluskey's report raises a number of relevant issues. I am particularly interested in his recommendation that we widen the scope for referrals to the Supreme Court beyond the acts or omissions of the Lord Advocate and that appeal to the Supreme Court be open, regardless of which public authority is alleged to have violated a person's convention rights. If a practical way can be found to incorporate such a change, the move seems eminently sensible. The Lord Advocate is not the sole point of contact for ensuring that accused people's convention rights are protected and I hope that we can consider and discuss this issue further as the Scotland Bill progresses. I was interested to hear Kenny MacAskill support such a change earlier this afternoon. I am also content with the report's recommendation that the Supreme Court remit cases in which it has found a convention breach right back to the High Court for it to determine the appropriate disposal.

However, I cannot agree with Lord McCluskey's recommendation on certification. I recognise that this tricky issue merits debate but, so far, there have been inconsistencies in comparisons. It has been mentioned more than once that a system of certification already exists in England and Wales and Northern Ireland but, as members of the Advocate General's expert group made clear in response to Lord McCluskey's group, any such comparison is flawed because, in those jurisdictions, the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for all aspects of criminal law. Of course, that is not the case in Scotland.

The Advocate General's group also noted the many exceptions to the certification system that are in place in the rest of the UK.


Kenny MacAskill: The member seems to be suggesting that, south of the border, the UK Supreme Court is the final court of appeal on criminal matters. Given that it is accepted even by the Advocate General that it is not meant to be, the justification for certification in Scotland is even greater than it is south of the border and it is therefore no wonder that, in response to comments by his fellow judges, the Lord President has written seeking certification.


Alison McInnes: I do not agree. The reason for having certification south of the border is the vast number of cases that might appear in the Supreme Court. The number of such cases is constrained in Scotland because only devolution issues are involved.

The Advocate General's group noted that many exceptions to the certification system are already in place in the rest of the UK and believed that it would be wholly inappropriate for Scotland to adopt certification unless similar exceptions were put in place-and such a formulation would, it said, "not be straightforward".

In any case, I fear that, once again, this debate is approaching the whole issue of ECHR compliance from the wrong angle. It is all very well for the cabinet secretary and the First Minister to be outraged that a "foreign court" is "undermining" Scots criminal law with its decisions. However, what I am outraged by - and what this Government should be outraged by - is the fact that our laws still have flaws that allow people's human rights to be impinged on in the first place.

As I said back in June, the perception remains that engagement with the ECHR tends to focus on criminal cases and that, therefore, it is a means of protecting the criminal classes. However, such a perception is not the reality, and nor should it be used as an excuse not to take action to ensure that Scotland's laws are compatible with the convention. I firmly believe that the Scottish Government must heed the Law Society's calls for a full review of Scottish criminal law and procedure to determine its compatibility with the ECHR.

I am very concerned that there remains a distinct air of "wha's like us?" in the Government's approach to this whole issue. Enshrining and protecting human rights in our laws should be a basic principle of government. However, when discussing concerns about potential human rights implications of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, the Lord Advocate appeared to be of the view that the law would be compliant, simply because he

"cannot act in a way that is incompatible with ... the ECHR."-[Official Report, Justice Committee, 20 September 2011; c 302.]

Ensuring the protection of human rights is far more complicated than that. The Government must take the issue seriously and I hope that, as we move forward, the debate on this issue will be more about the deficiencies of our law and less about taking cheap pot shots at the Supreme Court.

I move amendment S4M-01133.2, to leave out from "conclusions" to end and insert:

"constructive work of the review group chaired by Lord McCluskey on the examination of the relationship between the High Court of the Justiciary and the Supreme Court in criminal cases and notes that this follows the work of the Advocate General's expert group that examined this issue last year; in particular welcomes the review group's view that the Supreme Court should continue to have jurisdiction in relation to issues of convention rights arising in Scottish criminal cases; recognises that the High Court of the Justiciary is currently the final criminal court of appeal in Scotland; agrees that, in disposing of an appeal, the power of the Supreme Court should be limited to declaring whether or not there has been a breach of a convention right and, if there has been, to saying why this is so, and calls on the Scottish Government to work constructively with the UK Government to take forward a thorough and detailed consideration of the recommendations of both expert groups."

Transcript from the Scottish Parliament Offical Report, 27 October 2011, at General Question Time

Train Services (Overcrowding)

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD):

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what action is being taken to tackle overcrowding on peak train services between Inverurie, Dyce and Aberdeen. (S4O-00290)


The Minister for Housing and Transport (Keith Brown): In December 2008, the Edinburgh-Fife-Aberdeen timetable package introduced an hourly service between Inverurie and Aberdeen, which improved capacity along the route. In addition, as part of its franchise obligations, ScotRail monitors passenger numbers to ensure that it utilises its train fleet and resources to minimise overcrowding.

We have commissioned Network Rail to examine the feasibility, cost and deliverability of the options that are contained in the Aberdeen to Inverness rail improvement study to accommodate the anticipated growth in passenger numbers on that route.


Alison McInnes: A recent survey by Nestrans-the north east of Scotland transport partnership-highlighted significant overcrowding on peak services. It revealed, for example, that a peak evening service from Dyce to Aberdeen was operating at 141 per cent occupancy, while other services were operating at 118 per cent. If we are to encourage the use of public transport, that situation must be urgently addressed. Will the minister make it a priority to meet ScotRail and Nestrans to find a solution?

In addition, there has been a remarkable growth in passenger numbers in that area. In the past six years, passenger numbers at Inverurie have risen by 129 per cent, in comparison with the Scottish average of 34 per cent.

Will the minister agree to treat Aberdeen in the same way as Edinburgh and Glasgow and ensure that, in assessing future growth potential, he considers Aberdeen as a separate commuter market rather than relying on Network Rail's current forecasts, which include only the intercity routes?


Keith Brown: As I explained previously, it is down to ScotRail to ensure-within the franchise agreement for which it is responsible-that it provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the service demand that exists. That would, as Alison McInnes rightly says, include increases in growth.

The issue is worth thinking about as we enter the consultation process for the next franchise, in order to ensure that the points that Alison McInnes raises are considered. It is for ScotRail to address the issue, but I am happy to take it up with the company and get back to Alison McInnes.

Meeting of the Parliament 29 September 2011: Transcript of parlimentary debate

Cancer Drugs

The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00956, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on cancer drugs and their availability in Scotland.

09:31

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): Back in 2009, in response to the Public Petitions Committee inquiry, the cabinet secretary outlined three steps that her Government would take to improve access to medicines on the NHS, and we welcomed that approach. She said at the end of that debate:

"My objective is to ensure that we have a system in place that is, from end to end, robust, fair and well understood. Such a system should ensure that, when a patient can derive demonstrable benefit from a drug, it is available on the NHS through either SMC approval or exceptional prescribing."-[Official Report, 25 March 2009; c 16130-31.]

The situation in Scotland that Murdo Fraser has outlined is that

"patients in Scotland are now three times less likely than patients in England to gain access to a cancer medicine that is not routinely available".

There are geographical variations in the rate of exceptional prescribing applications as well as variations in patients' chances of making a successful application. Those variations are not acceptable. Relying on the exceptional prescribing process can, of course, also be stressful and time consuming.

The Rarer Cancers Foundation report entitled "The Scottish Exception? An audit of the progress made in improving access to treatment for people with rarer cancers" says that an increasing number of Scots have to rely on exceptional prescribing applications, that nearly a third of NHS boards have no written policy governing exceptional prescribing applications, and that NHS boards use variable criteria to assess exceptional prescribing applications. It is therefore clear that more work is needed to ensure that a transparent system is in place that is

"from end to end, robust, fair and well understood."

Expenditure on drugs amounts to almost 10 per cent of the NHS budget in Scotland. I understand that tough decisions will always need to be made in the area. Weighing up effectiveness against resources is an extremely difficult task, and it must be done in a rigorous and scrupulously objective way. It may well be that the criteria that are used to make those decisions need to be examined to see whether they disadvantage drugs that are designed to treat rare diseases, but the Scottish Liberal Democrats do not agree with the argument that we should bypass the Scottish Medicines Consortium for cancer drugs. That argument is intellectually unsound, unsustainable and unfair for people who suffer from other conditions. Politicians should not second guess the SMC.

Like Macmillan Cancer Support, Breakthrough Breast Cancer and Myeloma UK, we do not support the creation of a separate cancer drugs fund. The SMC's role is to make objective decisions about individual drugs, and recent initiatives should be given a chance to demonstrate their efficacy. Cancer Research UK has admitted that the bigger prize is the achievement of a decent settlement in negotiations about value-based pricing. I urge the Scottish Government to engage with the UK Government to ensure that the new scheme meets the needs of patients in Scotland.

The evidence that we have seen is that record keeping in NHS boards is still poor. Nearly two thirds of NHS boards do not hold information about the costs associated with funding exceptional prescribing applications. I would like to see that change. In order to help to make progress, the Government must increase transparency throughout the system and should consider commissioning research into what factors contribute to situations in which drugs are seen to be safe and effective but not cost effective and clinically evidenced.

One step that the cabinet secretary outlined in 2009 was the introduction of a set of modifiers that the SMC can apply when considering new medicines. Has an assessment been made of the impact that that more flexible approach is having on access? Have, as a result of the modifiers, any drugs been approved that would not have been approved under the standard methodology?

We seek a much greater contribution from the pharmaceutical industry, which should work with the Scottish Government to encourage patient access schemes and risk-sharing approaches. In our manifesto, we focused on improving early detection rates to increase survival and we set out plans for a new target on urgent referral for cancer diagnosis: every patient should expect to see a specialist within two weeks. We must focus on increasing early detection in order to tackle the unacceptably high number of cancer cases that are detected for the first time only during emergency admission to hospital. The subject is emotive, but it benefits from the calm and impartial consideration that the SMC can bring.

I move amendment S4M-00956.1, to leave out from "through" to end and insert:

"and that patients in Scotland are now three times less likely than patients in England to gain access to a cancer medicine that is not routinely available; notes that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy made a statement to the Parliament on 25 March 2009, outlining three steps being taken to improve access to new medicines, during which she said "All the developments that I have announced today will, individually and collectively, improve patients' access to medicines on the NHS"; recognises that an earlier RCF report, The Scottish Exception? An audit of the progress made in improving access to treatment for people with rarer cancers, published in March 2011, found that increasing numbers of Scots are having to rely on exceptional case applications, that nearly a third of NHS boards have no written policy governing exceptional case applications in place and that NHS boards use variable criteria to assess exceptional case applications; believes that more work is needed to ensure that there is a system in place that is, from end to end, robust, fair and well understood, and calls on the Scottish Government to outline its response to the findings in the RCF reports, work with the Scottish Medicines Consortium and NHS boards to increase transparency around decision making and work constructively with the UK Government to ensure that the new value-based pricing scheme meets the needs of patients in Scotland."