| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Thomas Campbell and Joseph Steele
9. Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will make his decision regarding a review of the Thomas Campbell and Joseph Steele case. [26058]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Once consideration of this case is completed, a decision will be announced.
Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that, under section 124 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, due to come into force on 1 April 1996, the Secretary of State for Scotland will be allowed to refer this case? The families of Thomas Campbell and Joseph Steele think it unjust that a conviction was obtained on the basis of
evidence from a perjurer who was known by the procurator fiscal and by a Queen's counsel to be lying.
A fortnight before the trial of the Doyle murderers, he had stated that he was living with his sister and never left the house between Friday and Sunday. A fortnight later, he gave evidence to the effect that he heard the relevant conversation. He is now saying that he conspired with the police--
Madam Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question.
Mr. Wray:
The man is now saying that he conspired with the police and the procurator fiscal.
We want justice for this family. Will the Secretary of State bring section 124 of the Act into operation?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
Some of the petitions received raise difficult and complex issues of law and judgment, requiring careful and detailed consideration. This may involve interviewing witnesses and commissioning expert reports. Most petitions are dealt with quickly; in some cases, it takes a considerable time to complete the detailed examination which the matters raised in the petition require. I can, however, give an undertaking that these matters will be looked at thoroughly and rigorously.
10. Sir David Steel:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra resources he plans to make available to local authorities to carry out responsibilities designated by his circulars (a) under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and (b) in increasing inspection of residential nursing homes. [26060]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
No extra resources are required.
Sir David Steel:
I am astonished by that reply. Since the financial settlements were reached with local authorities, six circulars have been sent out to social work departments imposing new responsibilities on them--one of them only today. Some of them are perfectly sensible, such as the requirement to inspect nursing homes twice, not once, a year, but no new resources have been attached to the circulars. May I plead with the Minister, therefore, that no circular should in future be sent to local authorities without the accompanying cash to enable them to carry out their new duties? Without that, undesirable cuts will be made elsewhere, such as in the home help service in the borders area.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
Many circulars confirm good practice and give appropriate guidance without involving extra funds. Borders council has £14.5 million for its community care responsibilities; that is an increase. The Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 stresses good practice; the guidance does not require more funding.
The guidance on local inspection of residential and day care services does not impose significant additional burdens on local authorities but does provide up-to-date guidance. That is why additional funds are not being awarded--they are not required.
Sir Hector Monro:
Does my hon. Friend agree that £662 million for community care in Scotland this year is
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been an increase of £41 million on the 1995-96 settlement. It is for authorities to establish their expenditure priorities.
Ms Rachel Squire:
In this National Carers Week, does the Minister agree that it is completely unacceptable that young carers in Scotland are not to have a statutory right to an assessment of their needs, unlike young carers in England and Wales? Will he further agree that this is another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another? Other hon. Members and I understood the Minister to promise, during the debate on the Bill on the Floor of the House, that Scotland's young carers would have such a legal right to an assessment of their needs.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
The Government strongly supported the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill during its passage through Parliament. Differences with the English provisions will not significantly disadvantage carers in Scotland. The guidance that we are giving encourages more co-ordinated, better-quality respite care services. We are encouraging local agencies to provide appropriate support for carers.
12. Mr. Galloway:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the Scottish Showmen's Guild to discuss the education of the children of Scotland's travelling people; and if he will make a statement. [26064]
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson:
Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have had any request to meet the Scottish Showmen's Guild to discuss the education of the children of Scotland's travelling people. Our policy is to promote equal opportunities in education, including education for travellers' children.
Mr. Galloway:
The guild is desperate to meet the four Scottish Office Ministers who are taking their place on the coconut shy in the fairgrounds these days because of the savage cuts in local government funding that they have imposed. The cuts have led to the imperilling of Whiteinch primary school in my constituency, where the travelling people send their children. Is the Minister aware that Whiteinch is the most popular primary school in Britain for the children of travelling people because of the hospitable welcome that they have been given there by the staff and by other pupils? Would it not be a tragedy if the school were to close as a result of the mean, tight-fisted settlement that the Government have reached with Glasgow city council, which has made such dreadfully painful choices necessary?
Mr. Robertson:
The hon. Gentleman is on the dodgem ride in dodging responsibility for his Labour-controlled local authority. He will agree with Accounts Commission for Scotland reports telling us
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will arrange an early meeting with his Labour-controlled council to put the points to it that he has put to me. At the end of the day, it is the council that must come to a decision.
Mr. Stewart:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the guild represents a responsible set of people? Many of them will be at the Neilston show this Saturday, which starts at 11 o'clock, if my hon. Friend is free. Does he agree also that the education of travellers' children involves a genuine issue? If he receives a request from the guild for a meeting, will he agree that either he or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or, if appropriate, his Scottish Office officials should have a discussion on genuine issues, not the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway)?
Mr. Robertson:
When my hon. Friend sees the members of the guild on Saturday in his constituency, as he takes his place at the fair, he can pass it on to them that my right hon. Friend and I will be delighted to see any delegation that is led by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Connarty:
It is obvious that the Minister will be concerned about the closure of any school that is attended by travellers' children and any other children. How is it that the same concern was not given to a school that is likely structurally to collapse? I refer to the Minister's visit to Bo'ness academy in my constituency. As a result of the cement that was used in construction, the school is falling down. We are told that it will have to be replaced within a decade. In other words, it will not be used after that. Why did the Minister not come forward with any further funding for the school? Why has he left the local authority with the problem of a collapsing school, with no help from an uncaring Government?
Mr. Robertson:
It is truly unfortunate for the hon. Gentleman's constituents that he feels that he cannot adopt the responsible attitude that has been taken by the headmaster and the local authority. The hon. Gentleman knows that I visited the school with him on 26 February. He knows also that the consulting engineers' report made it clear that there was no immediate concern about the continued occupancy of the building, subject to the results of continuing monitoring. The new Falkirk council has time to consider the options for the building in the light of the information that it now has.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |