Scottish Parliament e-Brief
Issue 13, 3rd April 2000
SECTION 1 - BUSINESS THIS WEEK
THE CHAMBER
Wednesday 5th April
Thursday 6th April
For briefings on the main debates, see section 3. More detailed information is available from Colin on request.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Education, Culture & Sport
Enterprise & Lifelong Learning
Local Government
Rural Affairs
Transport & Environment
Also Meeting: Subordinate Legislation
Copies of agendas / minutes will be available from the office as soon as they are published.
*To be held in private
SECTION 2 - NEWS
NATIONAL PARKS BILL PUBLISHED
The National parks Bill was published on 28th March and is available on the hyperlink: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parl_bus/bills/b12s1.pdf
The Bill will lead to the development of Scotland’s first National Parks. The Executive is committed to funding Scotland's National Parks to ensure they will provide for:
The Bill follows the publication of the draft bill on 21 January with 350 responses being received since.
SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS FORUM
Last Tuesday Deputy Minister for Children & Education, Peter Peacock, launched a new National Advisory Forum to advise Ministers on issues affecting children and young people with special educational needs.
In addressing the first meeting of the forum, Peter Peacock said:
"We are committed to ensuring that our policies for raising standards and improving services in Scottish Schools fully include children and young people with special educational needs. This new forum will help us meet this commitment. It will play a valuable role in commenting and advising on matters of strategic importance in the SEN area.
"It is essential that the interests of children and young people who experience learning difficulties are taken into account when educational policies are being discussed.
"The forum will enable a wide range of views to be heard, including those of parents. It will take particular steps to commission the views of children and young people themselves."
The Executive has established the Advisory Forum as part of their response to the Riddell report. The Education, Culture and Sport committee is currently undertaking a special educational needs inquiry and expects to report back in the summer.
WESTMINSTER LAUNCHES MINIMUM INCOME GUARANTEE TAKE-UP CAMPAIGN – "Are You Just Getting By When You Could Be Getting More?"
Although this is not a Scottish Parliament matter, it may be of interest.
The Westminster Government has launched its biggest ever campaign aimed at getting pensioners who qualify for the Minimum Income Guarantee to take up their entitlement.
The campaign will involve:
The campaign will make it simple for pensioners to claim. From May, having received the letter and seen the TV advert, all a pensioner will have to do is ring the special hotline and an adviser will help them fill in a new electronic claim form over the phone.
All the pensioner then has to do is sign and return the completed form, which will be sent out to their home. The whole process can be done from home, eliminating the need to visit a Benefits Agency office.
SECTION 3 - BACKGROUND TO THIS WEEK’S DEBATES
HOLYROOD PROJECT
On Wednesday, Parliament is being asked to debate and vote on proposals to continue with the Holyrood site. The cross-party Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB) has identified the following concerns:
For a full breakdown of the increase in costs please refer to section 4 of the Spencely report: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/agenda_and_decisions/bb-00/bb-03-30f.htm#3
Important factors:
Recent Developments:
Following the May elections, the Corporate Body was handed full responsibility for the Holyrood Project on 1 June 1999. Membership of the SPCB consists of: The Presiding Officer David Steel, Robert Brown MSP (Lib), Des McNulty MSP (Lab), Andrew Welsh (SNP) and John Young MSP (Con).
Parliament debated the increasing costs and the future of the project on the 17th June following the transfer of responsibility to the SPCB. Prior to the debate, the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) produced a research note which complements the paper circulated to Members on the 9th June by the Presiding Officer. The Research Note focuses on the history of the project, the selection of the site and the design team, and on the project’s costs.
The following motion on behalf of Donald Dewar was approved by Parliament in the subsequent debate:
That the Parliament endorses the decision to provide its permanent home on the Holyrood site and authorises the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to take forward the project in accordance with the plans developed by the EMBT/RMJM design team and within the timescale and cost estimates described in the Presiding officer’s note to members of 9 June 1999.
The letter issued to MSPs on 9th June estimated total costs had risen from £90 million to £109 million, a rise largely due to an increase in estimated construction costs. The current approved budget is thus £109 million. If you are interested in reading the full debate go to:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/session99-00/or011002.htm#Col520
SPCB and the Spencely Report
As part of their remit of overseeing the Holyrood project, and in response to recent concerns over the cost, the SPCB commissioned John Spencely to prepare a report on the Holyrood Project earlier this month. The report was presented to the SPCB this week. Copies are available from:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/agenda_and_decisions/bb-00/bb-03-30f.htm
The Spencely report is intended to update MSPs and assist them in taking an informed decision on the future of the project. In response to Spencely, the SPCB has produced a report which summarises their views and responds to the key points outlined in Spencely’s report. The SPCB report can also be found at the above web address.
Key Points of Spencely Report and the SPCB’s response:
Having been informed by the Spencely Report, the SPCB accepts that should the Parliament decide to proceed with the Holyrood Project, it can be completed to latest design and completed within a total budget of £195 million. The design and construction teams have advised that the building can be completed, fitted and commissioned by the end of 2002.
In their summary, the SPCB accept the challenges outlined by Spencely in his concerns over the ‘effectiveness of communications between the Corporate Body and the Project Team’. They identify the following issues as paramount and outline the action which needs to be taken:
The brief for the project should now be finalised. The SPCB has attempted to respond to understandable demands from Members, staff and others for appropriate facilities in the new building. They have also had strong representation from Historic Scotland and others on Queensberry House. These demands have resulted in significant redesign, in particular of the debating chamber. To meet the cost and programme outlined by Spencely, this process must now be concluded.
The budget available is a matter for the Parliament. If it accepts the estimate of £195m then the approved scheme design – which is very close to completion (and on which Members will be briefed before the debate) – will be delivered on the basis of that budget.
The completion date of the end of 2002 can only be met if construction management team are given the go-ahead to proceed on the basis of an approved scheme and budget. The SPCB would aim to do so as quickly as possible after any vote to proceed with Holyrood. On that basis the clear target would be the end of 2002.
The management and direction of and communication within the Project can be improved. In particular, the SPCB recommends acceptance of John Spencely’s proposal to establish a Project Progressing Committee to provide the time and expertise needed to complete the Holyrood project.
The SPCB make it clear that they have already received assurances as to the working arrangements between architects, engineers and surveyors and to the arrangements for handling future, detailed design work.
In the light of John Spencely’s detailed report and advice, the Corporate Body is advising Parliament that the cost of cancelling Holyrood would be a minimum of £25 million, based on costs incurred of £30 million and a net site value of between £2 and 6 million. The SPCB are concerned, however, that there is a significant likelihood that this could be higher taking into account the risk of legal action to settle claims.
The SPCB is inviting the Parliament to determine whether they wish to continue with the project in light of these recommendations.
REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS - DEBATE ON WESTMINSTER BILL
This is a ‘Sewel motion’ by which the Scottish Parliament agrees to allow Westminster to legislate on a devolved matter – in this case, in the field of justice and home affairs.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill concerns the powers of the state to intercept and monitor private communications. In particular, it will ensure consistency with the European Convention on Human Rights, and update the law to take account of new electronic means of communication.
There is one area – what is known as ‘intrusive surveillance’ – where the Bill only applies to Scotland in certain circumstances, and in regard to which separate Scottish legislation may be introduced at a later date.
Introduction to the Bill
This Bill represents a significant step forward for the protection of human rights in Britain. It has two major purposes.
Firstly, it will for the first time ensure that surveillance and interception techniques used in law enforcement activities are properly consistent with the duties imposed by the European Convention on Human Right (which goes ‘live’ from October 2000 in England & Wales but is of course already in force in Scotland). Instead of the piecemeal changes which went before in response to individual cases lost in Strasbourg, we are finally bringing the citizen’s rights home and creating a robust and comprehensive framework for regulating the use of all these techniques with new avenues of redress to those who think that powers have been abused.
Secondly, it will update our legislation to reflect the huge changes in communications technology which have occurred since 1985 when the last major legislation in this area was passed. E-mail services, text pagers and satellite phones play an increasingly important part in national and international communications but until now have not been covered by the legislation. This Bill will correct that anomaly.
Why are these powers necessary?
Interception and surveillance play a crucial role in the fight against organised and serious crime.
In 1998 for example 52% of all heroin seizures resulted directly from intelligence from interception. Figures are hard to pin down but, throughout 1998, the total value of drugs seized in this way was in excess of £185m.
What powers does the Bill cover?
There are six particular investigatory powers which are regulated by this Bill. These are:
What will be the framework of regulation?
To ensure that interception and surveillance techniques are compatible with the Human Rights Act the Bill will set out, or will provide for subordinate legislation to set out:
For the first time law enforcement and other public authorities will have clear guidance on precisely the circumstances under which they can use particular techniques. Members of the public will benefit because it will be clear to them as to the circumstances under which these powers can be used. They will have access to an identifiable Tribunal if they believe the powers have been abused, and there will be Commissioners charged with reporting to the Prime Minister each year on the use of the powers.
Intrusive surveillance
Part II of the Bill deals with what is called intrusive surveillance. This involves methods such as bugging a person’s home and the Bill restricts the circumstances in which it is permissible. This part of the Bill only applies to Scotland in certain circumstances.
Clause 73 of the Bill reads in part:
(3) Part II of this Act does not extend to Scotland except so far as it makes provision for, or in relation to, the authorisation of any conduct in Scotland -
The public authorities referred to in subsection (4) are:
Because of this partial applicability, a bill regarding intrusive surveillance may be introduced to the Scottish Parliament at a later date.
Other important changes
In addition to the framework set out above the Bill brings in a number of important specific improvements:
The Bill improves individual rights to privacy by extending the rigorous protections which apply to interception on public network to private networks as well. There will be a new criminal offence of unlawful interception of private networks and a civil liability on employers and others who over-step the mark in monitoring their own systems
The Bill for the first time names those agencies who are to be empowered to apply for interception warrants with a power to add or delete from this list the names of the agencies who may wish to apply for interception warrants or who should not be able to apply for interception warrants in future.
The Bill simplifies the process for approving warrants by ending the necessity for agencies to return to the relevant minister every time an individual changes his phone number or acquires a new mobile phone.
There is provision for Scottish judges to be part of the warrant procedure.
New powers of scrutiny and redress
Part IV of the Bill sets out who is to scrutinise the use of interception and surveillance powers.
It proposes that the existing independent Commissioners (who are all senior member of the judiciary) namely the Interception Commissioner, Security Service Commissioner, Intelligence Services Commissioner and Surveillance Commissioners, should continue with their existing roles and should be responsible for oversight of the new powers set out in the Bill. They will have wide-ranging powers to inspect records and they will report each year to the Prime Minister. Their reports will then be published.
On top of these safeguards a new tribunal will be established for those who wish to complain about the use of interception or surveillance powers. The Bill will abolish the Interception Tribunal, Security Service Tribunal and Intelligence Services Tribunal and will establish one powerful, comprehensive Tribunal to replace all of these functions and any others that are relevant under this Bill.
Burdens on business?
The Bill will put a requirement on all Communication Service Providers to ensure that their system is capable of being interception. This is an obligation which already applies to major telecommunications companies like BT. What the Bill will do is to extend this requirement to other communications services such as Internet service providers or international simple resale operators. The Bill recognises that it would be appropriate for the Government to make a contribution to costs which would otherwise be unreasonable for Communication Service Providers to bear
Large parts of the telecommunications industry are already covered by the current interception legislation and will incur little or no extra cost. These proposals will simply help us to achieve a level playing field. We are already involved in consulting industry on what might constitute a reasonable interception capability, particularly in respect of Internet Service Providers and are keen to minimise any additional burden on UK industry and to avoid prejudicing the UK industry’s international competitiveness.
[ HOME ] [ News ] [ Articles ] [ Calendar ] [ Contacts ] [ Links ] [ E-Mail ]
[ Copyright ] [ Open Government ] [ Scottish Parliament ]