Chamber and committees

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

This information is not available, however drug dependency performance data from 1970 is presented in the following tables.

Table 1

Year	Average Daily Population	Number known to have Drug Dependency Issues	Additional Information
1970	5,003	35
1971	5,338	42
1972	5,220	87
1973	4,810	40
1974	4,689	6	Figure relates only to hard drugs e.g. Heroin
1975	4,951	17
1976	4,884	32	Figure relates only to hard drugs e.g. Heroin
1977	4,871	15
1978	5,062	42
1979	4,585	35
1980	4,860	69
1981	4,518	121
1982	4,891	Not recorded this year
1983	5,052	490	Recorded as dependent or having recently abused drugs
1984	4,753	1,163
1985	5,273	Report is not available
1986	5,587	Report is not available
1987	5,446	Report is not available
1988	5,229	Report is not available
1989-90	4,920	2,301
1990-91	4,753	2,714

 

Table 2

Year	Methodology	Average Daily Population	Number of Tests Completed	Proportion Estimated to have Drug Dependency Issues
1996-97	MDT*	5,993	Information is not available	36%
1997-98	MDT	6,059	7,070	29%
1998-99	MDT	6,029	7,162	25%
1999-00	MDT	5,975	6,605	22%
2000-01	MDT	5,883	5,647	21%
2001-02	MDT	6,186	6,974	22%
2002-03	MDT	6,475	7,529	23%
2003-04	MDT	6,621	6,456	35%
2004-05	MDT	6,779	7,308	37%

Note: *The phased introduction of MDT from February 1996 meant that not all establishments were carrying out tests for all of 1996-97.

The following data are not comparable with the above due to differing testing methodology
Year	Methodology	Average Daily Population	Number of Tests Completed	Proportion estimated to have drug dependency issues
2005-06	APM	6,857	903	34%
2006-07	APM	7,183	1,784	41%
The following data are not comparable with the above due to differing testing methodology
2007-08	APT	7,376	836	71%
2008-09	APT	7,835	1,112	75%

Notes:

No information is available between 1991 and 1996. However research was carried out during this time and the findings of the report were used to inform future policy. Shewan D, Gemmell M and Davies JB; Drug Use and Scottish Prisons “ Summary Report; 1994.

MDT - Mandatory Drug Testing (1996 to 2005)

A random 10% of the current prisoner population per month were tested. The Key Performance Indicator for this measure was 85% drug free.

ATM - Addiction Testing measure (2005-06 to 2006-07)

A random 5% sample of the prisoner population is tested three times per year. The test was voluntary and the results anonymous and could not be attributed to the individual tested. This measure was designed to better inform the interventions required to meet prisoner needs. The voluntary nature of the test resulted in low participation rates.

APT - Addiction Prevalence Testing (2007-08 to 2008-09)

This test took place in two months of the year and involved testing all admissions and liberations, (equivalent to 5% of total annual admissions and liberations). This allows key measurement of reduction in drug use between admission and liberation. There was a chain of custody and the obtained sample was sent to an independent lab for testing. The test was mandatory but anonymous; therefore a positive test did not result in punishment but there was an incentive to take part resulting in higher numbers being tested.

The number of known and estimated heroin users since 1950 is not held centrally.

However, estimates of the prevalence of problematic opiate (includes heroin and other opiates) and/or benzodiazepine misuse in Scotland have been carried out for 2000, 2003 and 2006. Table 1 shows the estimated numbers across Scotland and the 95% confidence interval for each estimate.

Table 1: Estimated Numbers of Problem Drug Users (Opiates and/or Benzodiazepine Misuse): Scotland 2000, 2003 and 2006

	2000	2003	2006
Scotland point estimate (95 % confidence range)	55,800 (43,664 “ 78,443)	51,582 (51,456 “ 56,379)	55,328 (54,451 “ 57,234)

Source: Estimating the National and Local Prevalence of Problem Drug Misuse in Scotland Centre for Drug Misuse Research, University of Glasgow Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health.

http://www.drugmisuse.isdscotland.org/publications/local/Prevalence_2009.pdf.

Funding of regional parks is a matter for the appropriate local authorities.

Until 2008-09 SNH provided discretionary grant funding towards core and other costs for the regional parks. The sums provided to each park for each year since 1999, were as follows:

Regional Park	1999-2000 (£ Million)	2000-01 (£ Million)	2001-02 (£ Million)	2002-03 (£ Million)	2003-04 (£ Million)
Pentland Hills	0.121	0.124	0.115	0.112	0.098
Clyde-Muirshiels	0.218	0.218	0.236	0.239	0.263
Lomond Hills (Fife)	0.077	0.058	0.068	0.065	0.080

 

Regional Park	2004-05 (£ Million)	2005-06 (£ Million)	2006-07 (£ Million)	2007-08 (£ Million)	2008-09 (£ Million)
Pentland Hills	0.121	0.110	0.112	0.109	0.107
Clyde-Muirshiels	0.256	0.262	0.262	0.267	0.262
Lomond Hills (Fife)	0.092	0.086	0.089	0.088	0.069

 

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has no records of paying grants to the Loch Lomond Regional Park, which ceased to operate as regional park following the designation of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park in 2002.

As part of the Concordat agreed by Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local authorities, Scottish ministers agreed to transfer to the local government finance settlement for 2009-10 and 2010-11, the resources which SNH would have paid to local authorities for their natural heritage projects on the basis that this would enable local authorities to determine local priorities in the use of these funds. This transfer took account of the funds which SNH had previously paid to regional parks. SNH will, however, continue to respond to requests for advice from the regional parks and from the local authority partners who constituted the regional parks.

Under current legislation, access to disclosure checks is governed by whether or not a position (in this case host parent) is a child care position as defined in the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 (POCSA). As there is no statutory definition of host parents in POCSA, this depends on the specific arrangements made. It is the responsibility of the relevant organisation to apply the law to the particular circumstances of their activity.

The child care positions specified in POCSA which would most commonly apply to host parenting would be those whose normal duties involve caring for, supervising or being in sole charge of children. Children being hosted by other parents who are not friends of the family are likely to be cared for/supervised/under the sole charge of the host parents for the times of the visit. Generally, normal duties can be considered as something the individual might be expected to do as part of their post on an ongoing basis, for example appearing in a job description or, in the case of host parents, set out in the arrangements made between the parents and the organisers. 

At the present time, there is a variation in approach by organisations across Scotland on the checking of host parents, which is justified to the extent that it is a result of different circumstances of each case. Although the overwhelming majority of host parents pose no threat, there have been cases where the disclosure process has identified previous sexual offences committed by prospective hosts who have, as a result, been removed from the hosting process.

Existing arrangements for enhanced disclosure for those in child care positions will be replaced by new arrangements under the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007, which will come into force later in 2010. Like POCSA, the 2007 Act does not make explicit provision for host parents. The Scottish Government is now consulting on whether or not to make explicit provision covering host parents. This is part of the consultation on modifications to the scope of regulated work with children, published as part of a suite of draft secondary legislation for consultation on 10 November 2009 and running until 2 February 2010. The consultation seeks views from stakeholders as to whether to: proceed with such provision; make different provision or make no provision at all.

The Scottish Government wants hosting arrangements to be quick and efficient to organise, avoiding any inappropriate deterrent to potential host parents from disclosure requirements. However, there is also a need to ensure the protection of children in situations where they are potentially quite vulnerable. The Scottish Government wants to ensure the legislation strikes the right balance between proportionate and still robust protection.

In respect of parents hosting other people''s children in the context of a school exchange programme, I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-28823 on 19 November 2009. There are no requirements for checking of parents sending their children on a school exchange programme. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

The Scottish Government has provided guidance to local authorities and schools on the protection of children and young people whilst at school. The Safe and Well handbook (2005) provides detailed advice and information to inform local authority and school policies on a range of issues which may affect children and young people. This includes advice on the role of child protection co-ordinators, national policy and legislation and specific issues and concerns which may arise, including arrangements for residential visits and school trips. We are currently updating the Safe and Well guidance. It is planned that revised guidance will be published on the Learning and Teaching Scotland website in spring 2010.

Scottish Government planning guidance does not contain such an indication, this being an issue for planning authorities to determine for their respective areas.

Scottish Government planning guidance does not specifically require an assessment of the likely impact of housing development on public services, but does require planning authorities to provide settlement strategies as part of the development plan. Settlement strategies should consider the provision of housing, infrastructure and community facilities and can be used in development management decisions.

Scottish Government planning guidance does not require an assessment in such specific terms, but does require planning authorities to provide settlement strategies as part of the development plan. Settlement strategies should consider the provision of housing, infrastructure and community facilities and can be used in development management decisions.

The Business Gateway service provides a first stop access point, across all Scotland, to information and assistance on all forms of business support available for businesses and individuals who wish to start a business. These services are available to all, including disabled entrepreneurs.

Support is also available from Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) for those businesses and sectors that have growth potential and are of national and regional significance. Scottish Enterprise and HIE focus their support on the areas where they can have the most economic impact.

Public bodies are required to assess the impact of their policies and services on different equality groups, including disabled people, and to aim to reduce or eliminate unfair impact on any particular group. The Disability Discrimination Act (2005) also requires public bodies to take steps to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people.