Section 103 — Supervision requirements: conditions restricting movement

Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 5:00 pm on 17 June 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative 5:00, 17 June 2004

Group 27 is on children's hearings and supervision requirements. Amendment 69, in the name of Ms Margaret Curran, is grouped with amendments 74 and 75.

Photo of Mary Mulligan Mary Mulligan Labour

The amendments in this group are Executive amendments that are consequential on the changes that we made at stage 2 to part 12 of the bill. Amendment 69 is a minor tidying-up amendment. Amendment 74 will ensure that all references to the secure criteria in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, including those that relate to matters pending disposal by a hearing, are references to the new criteria—now referred to as conditions—that we inserted at stage 2. That will ensure consistent use of the conditions in all circumstances.

Amendment 75 is a minor amendment. It will tidy up references that the bill makes to the definition of relevant local authority in part 2 of the 1995 act.

I move amendment 69.

Photo of Scott Barrie Scott Barrie Labour

I will talk briefly about section 103 of the bill. The minister is aware that I moved a number of amendments at stage 2 with the intention of widening slightly the scope of the use of restriction of liberty orders. My intention was to ensure that they would not be used only as a direct alternative to secure accommodation. I did not wish to see more children being caught up in the system; indeed, I wish to see them being referred away from secure accommodation.

It is a bit unfortunate, therefore, that we have tied ourselves into the use of RLOs as a direct alternative to secure accommodation, because the orders could be used at some point down the road as a way of avoiding the use of secure accommodation in certain circumstances. I hope that the issue is one to which we might return when we review the children's hearings system.

Photo of Mary Mulligan Mary Mulligan Labour

I accept the principle that Scott Barrie has maintained in the debate. The issue will be considered during the review of the children's hearings system and I am sure that he will return to it at that stage.

Amendment 69 agreed to.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

We move to group 28. Amendment 93, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, is grouped with amendment 94.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

I have a very simple pair of amendments in the group, but they have quite wide significance. I hope that, if they are agreed to, they might set a new trend and a new approach.

Basically, the bill contains a power that allows the Executive to enter into contracts for tagging. Not all members may be aware of the existing contract for tagging. We have not heard any particularly bad news about that contract, but it is with Reliance, a company that is—shall we say—under close supervision due to its antisocial behaviour and other matters.

Is the time not right for Government contracts to be a matter of public record? That is what the amendments in the group are about. There are those who will argue that Government contracts contain information that is commercially sensitive, which is undoubtedly true. One of the things that I seek to achieve is to open the door on that commercially sensitive information.

I want to share with the chamber—fairly briefly—a little bit about how contracts work in the real world, in which large moneys are spent by commercial operations. When I wrote large contracts, I used to use a gentleman by the name of Oz Watt. He ran a little company that enabled us to work out what other people were paying for the commodities for which we were writing the contracts. That is fairly common practice when large commercial contracts are being written. I get the faint indication from the Minister for Finance and Public Services that the Executive probably does the same thing—and quite right too.

One of the advantages of opening the books on public sector contracts would be that, when they came up for renewal, the companies that were bidding for them would understand clearly what they had to achieve to secure a contract. As a result, prices would be driven down and quality would be pushed up, as people sought to improve on the quality that they deliver. So there are economic benefits in opening up the books.

However, it is recent events that have driven me to lodge the amendments in the group. I am thinking of contracts that are signed and then seem to fail. Let us be honest about the matter: some of the discussion around the recent contracts has been, to a degree, abstract, because we did not know the details of the contract. Frankly, that is not in the interest of the Opposition, the Executive or the wider public.

It is sometimes suggested that, if we had to publish public sector contracts, companies would be reluctant to do business with the public sector. Well, as the biggest spender of money on contracts in the economy, people would have to do business with the Executive if those were the terms of business. It is unfair to disclose contracts without prior agreement, but it is perfectly fair to require that if contracts are entered into with the Government, it is done in the knowledge that they will be published. Amendments 93 and 94 are small, but they lay down a marker for a point of principle.

I move amendment 93.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

I call for brief contributions.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

In terms of expertise, Stewart Stevenson is to contract law what Tommy Sheridan is to breach of the peace law. I will be even more blunt: amendments 93 and 94 offer us the opportunity to avoid in future the fiasco that we have seen with the Reliance contract in the past few weeks.

When contracts are entered into with private companies for the provision of public services at taxpayers' expense, the presumption should be that the contract will be published and fully open to public scrutiny. It should not be the case that a company has the right to decide, for reasons of its own commercial interest, what will be published and what will remain confidential.

I am aware that the minister might say that, on occasion, there are good reasons for deciding to keep aspects of contracts confidential—for example, for reasons of public safety—and I happily agree with that. Amendments 93 and 94 would not prevent ministers from taking such decisions, subject to freedom of information rules, but they would prevent private companies from having a veto over what is in the public domain and what is not. There is a view that companies would no longer do business with the public sector in such circumstances, but Stewart Stevenson is absolutely right to say that they would adapt.

It is important that we put down a marker in the bill. I am happy to support Stewart Stevenson's amendments 93 and 94.

Photo of Mary Mulligan Mary Mulligan Labour

Stewart Stevenson will not be surprised to hear that the Executive rejects amendments 93 and 94. They are not needed to achieve the aim of sharing information and they are too narrow to allow full public and parliamentary scrutiny of the arrangements governing electronic monitoring in the children's hearings system.

Let me put on record again the fact that this Government is committed to freedom of information. It is already made clear to all contractors who intend to bid for Scottish Executive contracts that they may be published, in keeping with the code of practice on access to Scottish Executive information and in line with full implementation of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 in January 2005.

I assume that Stewart Stevenson is looking to make quick political mileage from a point about Reliance, which ignores the fact that the Scottish Prison Service and Reliance agreed during contract negotiations to publish their contract, and appropriate provisions were included prior to signing the deal on 7 November 2003. That was fully in line with the code of practice and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. So again, his approach is not needed.

Of far greater importance to us today than a distracting row about one unrelated contract is how we successfully implement the bill and build confidence in our communities. Let me put on record the fact that ministers will share all information with members and stakeholders as planning for the implementation of the measures develops. Members know that we will do that, because we have done it before. Fast-track hearings were developed jointly with a range of stakeholders, including panel members, service providers, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, the police and local authorities. It needed to be that way because the child, not one individual organisation, is at the centre of the hearings system, and we all needed to ensure that services were delivered in a joined-up way. We published the full guidance on the operation of the pilot and included funding and accountability details for all partners. Parliament had the information in full from the outset.

What members need to know is information about the decision-making process and performance and accountability criteria, to allow Parliament and the public to measure the overall success of electronic monitoring and support services in the hearings system. Successful implementation will result from effective team working across the public, independent and private sectors. That matters to all members, because Parliament has been keen to ask us how we intend to build on our guarantee that young people under 16 will have a support package, not just a tag.

That is why amendments 93 and 94 are too narrow; they consider only the potential service requirements, funding and accountability of the tag provider, which is only one aspect of a joined-up service. We need to work with all the stakeholders to consider the whole system and its service to the child and family.

Regular performance information will be published, covering all aspects of the service once phase 1 of the implementation of tagging is in place. Independent evaluation will also be commissioned and published, as it was for fast-track hearings, and its findings will be taken into account for national roll-out. I believe that that represents a good deal for our young people and their communities and I urge members who are interested in the whole-package approach to reject amendments 93 and 94.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party 5:15, 17 June 2004

I was astonished to hear the minister say that my amendments were too narrow. She might find me responding to the challenge at the next opportunity—I suspect that I will take it up in a finance debate at an appropriate point.

The minister talked at great length about performance and the openness with which she will approach the monitoring of contracts. However, that is rather difficult if the detail of the contract against which the performance is to be measured is not known to us. Some of us are familiar with contracts, as my colleague Nicola Sturgeon said. I have to say that, given recent events, it is a shame that one of those who seemed considerably less familiar with the Reliance contract than almost anyone else was the person in charge of the Prison Service, whom one might have expected to know something about the matter.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The question is, that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 32

For: Adam, Brian, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fox, Colin, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harvie, Patrick, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Robison, Shona, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, MacDonald, Margo, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McMahon, Michael, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 79, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 93 disagreed to.

[Amendment 94 not moved.]